KUMARAN NAMBOODIRI Vs. COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition seeks a writ of certiorari or other appropriate direction quashing the order of the Cochin Devaswom Board suspending the petitioner from his office as Managing Trustee of the chullurmaniyathu Kavu Devaswoms. The order is dated 10. 9. 1950 and reads as follows: "whereas the Cochin Devaswom Board is satisfied that the affairs of the Chulurmaniyathu Kavu Devaswoms situated in Poyya village, mukundapuram Taluk, are grossly mismanaged by the Managing Uralan the Meladath manakkal Sankaran Kumaran Namboori, whereas the other two uralas Vadakke kizhiyedath Vishnu Namboori and Meladath Sankaran Subramanian Namboori are found to participate in the various acts of mismanagements, the Devaswom Board in virtue of the powers vested in it under S. 87 of the Travancore Cochin Hindu religious Institutions Act, XV of 1950 is pleased to depute the Assistant devaswom Commissioner, Trivanchikulam group, to conduct and enquiry into the affairs of the said Devaswoms and to suspend these uralars pending the enquiry and to appoint the 4th uralan Sri. Thekkekizhiyedath Vishnu Narayanan Namboori as an interim trustee of the said Devaswom, under Ss. 91 and 100 of the Act with a view to protect and conserve the Trust. " The enquiry directed is by virtue of the powers conferred on the Board under S. 87 (i) of the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious institutions Act, 1950, which reads: "the Board may depute any officer not lower in grade than a Devaswom Assistant Commissioner to enquire into the affairs of any institution and to examine the properties, movable and immovable, and the accounts, registers and other records of any institution and to submit a full report on the result of such enquiry and inspection. The trustees, office-holders and servants of such institution shall furnish the officer so deputed with all the information he may call for and shall also assist him in the examination of the properties, accounts, registers and records. On the report of the officer deputed to conduct the enquiry the Board shall pass such orders as it may think proper. " Sub-s. (3) of that section provides: "pending final orders on the report of the officer deputed to conduct the enquiry under sub-s. (1) or pending the enquiry, the board may suspend the trustee, office-holder or servant. " and there can be no doubt that the words of the sub-section will sustain the impugned order of the Devaswom Board.

(2.) THE argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner was that sub-s. (3) embodies a discrimination as far as the trustees of the Devaswoms in the Cochin portion of the State is concerned as no similar provision obtains in Part I of the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, which deals with the Travancore portion of the State and AIR 1954 Supreme court 297 was cited in support of the contention. In that case their Lordships said: "it appears that in the former State of Rajasthan provisions regarding the management by Government of Jagirs and the right to collect rents already existed, whereas there was no such provision in the former States of Jaipur, Bikaner, Jaisalmer and Jodhpur and Matsya Union, but when the integration took place in April and May 1949 the discrimination exhibited itself not by virtue of anything inherent in the impugned Ordinance but by reason of the fact that Jagirdars of one part of the present State of rajasthan were already subjected to a disability in the matter of management of their Jagirs while the other parts were wholly unaffected. This discrimination, however undesirable, was not open to any exception until the Constitution came into force in January 26,1950 when Art. 13 declared that all laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of this constitution, in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of this part, shall to the extent of such inconsistency, be void. " that "it becomes therefore necessary to see whether the impugned provision which is discriminatory on the face of it is hit by Art. 14 which declares that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or equal protection of the laws within the territory of India". and concluded: "such an obvious discrimination can be supported only on the ground that it was based upon a reasonable classification. It is now well settled by the decision of this court that a proper classification must always bear a reasonable and just relation to the things in respect of which it is proposed. Judged by this criterion it seems to us that the discrimination is based on no classification at all and is manifestly unreasonable and arbitrary".

(3.) IN the view we have taken the larger contention of the petitioner that many of the other provisions of the Travancore Cochin Hindu religious INstitutions Act, 1950, if not the whole of that enactment, are ultra vires of the Constitution, does not arise for consideration. All that we propose to say at present is that in the light of the decisions of the Supreme court in AIR 1954 SC 282, 388 and 400, the Act as a whole must be held intra vires and whether any particular section does or does not offend the constitution will be a matter for special investigation.