K RAGHAVENDRA NAYAK Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition by seven trustees and the temple of which they are the trustees, is directed against the election of a Chairman of the Board of Trustees at the instance of the Deputy Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner of the District concerned. The notice of tne result of the proceedings for the election of the Chairman issued under tne signature of the Assistant Commissioner has also been challenged.

(2.) It is only relevant to state a few facts for the disposal of this petition. The temple in question is at Karkal and the deity is Venkataramana. It is not in dispute that it is a denominational temple managed by 14 hereditary trustees. There is, however, some controversy as to the identity of the section of the community which was entitled to manage the same, it is unnecessary for me to examine this controversy for the disposal of this petition. The 14 hereditary trustees on and off were entering into arrangements, sstyled as scheme, in regard to the management of the temple. The last of such schemes is dt. August 7, 1933, a copy of which has been produced and marked as Annexure A to the petition. According to the said arrangement the trustees were entitled to elect a Managing Committee of three persons in order to manage the day-to-day affairs of the temple. It would appear that the last Managing Committee was elected on 29-6-69 and took office with effect from 3C-6-1969. In view of the provision in Annexure A that their term shall be for three years only, the poriod of office of such Managing Committee came to an end on 30-6-1972. Thereafter, no fresh Committee appears to have been elected inspite of the endeavours of some of the trustees. This position resulted in a stalemate. Consequently, some of the trustees approached the Deputy Commissioner of the District requesting him to convene a meeting for the purpose of election of a Chairman. The Deputy Commissioner directed the Assistant Commissioner to hold a meeting for the purpose and also prescribed the quorum therefor. As a result of this direction, the. Assistant Commissioner issued notice of the meeting to all the 14 trustees (Annexure D) and held a meeting on 11-11-1972. A copy of the proceedings has been produced as Annexure F. In the said meeting only 8 of the trustees presented themselves, and the petitioners herein did not attend. At that meeting respondent 8 herein was elected as the Chairman. The fact of his election was duly notified by the Assistant Commissioner by a 'notification' a copy of which has been produced as Annexure G. Aggrieved by the proceedings held by the Assistant Commissioner and the consequent notification, the petitioners have approached this Court.

(3.) On behalf of the petitioners, Sri U. L. Narayana Rao, the learned Counsel, contended thus : Ss. 39, 41, 42 and 44 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, (Act) have been held to be violative of Art.26 of the Constitution and therefore invalid and inoperative. Once S.39 has been declared to be unconstitutional, S.40 with all its sub-sections must be deemed to be ineffective in respect of a denominational temple of the present nature. It is therefore, submitted that it is no part of the duty of the Deputy Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner to convene a meeting, much less are the trustees entitled to elect the Chairman pursuant to S.40(2) of that Act. In this view, the petitioners have requested for the quashing of Annexures F and G by the issue of an appropriate direction in the nature of a writ of certiorari.