K RAMACHANDRA SRINIVAS KINI Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS MANGALORE DAKSHINA KANNADA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An order dated 29th of March, 1989 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Mangalore under Section 74(3) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 is what is challenged in the present writ petition. The facts in brief may be set out thus: The petitioner was working as Managing Trustee of Sri Katapadi Venkataramana Temple, Katapadi, Udupi Taluk. An audit report prepared for the period between 1-7-1971 and 16-11-1973 brought to light certain irregularities allegedly committed by the petitioner in his capacity as the Managing Trustee. A notice was accordingly issued by the Deputy Commissioner calling upon the petitioner to show-cause as to why a sum of Rs. 12,944.29 ps. representing the loss caused by his acts of omission and commission be not recovered from him under Section 74(3) of the Act aforesaid. On receipt of the notice, the petitioner submitted a reply dated 21st October, 1979, in which he inter alia pointed out that a copy of the audit report had not been furnished to him to enable him to submit his explanation to the same. Some time later, however, the petitioner appears to have filed a reply dated 18th of June, 1983 to the objections raised in the audit report. Based on the materials so available before the Commissioner, an order dated 7th of August, 1985 was passed by him certifying a sum of Rs. 12,944.29 ps. to be recoverable from the petitioner. The petitioner next filed a representation dated 14th of August, 1985 seeking reconsideration of the aforesaid order. The matter appears to have remained under consideration of the Deputy Commissioner till 12th of June, 1989 when he passed a fresh order determining a sum of Rs. 12,783.35 ps. to be recoverable from the petitioner and asking him to deposit the same within one month, failing which threatening to recover the amount so determined as arrears of land revenue. Aggrieved, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition as already pointed out earlier.

(2.) Sri M.N. Hegde, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, raised a short ground in support of the petition. He argued that even though the petitioner had submitted his explanation to the show-cause notice as also the audit report, the Deputy Commissioner had not considered the same while making the impugned order. The Deputy Commissioner it was contended had passed the impugned order entirely on the report of the Assistant Commissioner without due and proper application of mind on his part to the points raised by the petitioner, which he was supposed to do looking to the nature of the proceedings and their far-reaching implications.

(3.) There is substance in this submission. Section 74 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, which is admittedly applicable to the proceedings initiated by the Deputy Commissioner may at this stage be extracted to the extent the same is relevant for our purposes: