V. SRIDHAR, PRESIDENT, SRI RAO BAHADUR VEMUR RANGANATHAN CHETTY CHARITIES Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, COMMERCIAL TAXES AND RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Vemur Ranganathan Chetty of Triplicane left a will dated 30th January, 1949 bequeathing all his properties to be taken over after his life- time by the executors who were also the trustees under a settlement deed dated 28th January, 1949 executed by him. Under the settlement deed he directed the members of the Governing Body of Sree Venkateswara Students Hostel, Triplicane, be appointed as trustees. He also directed the performance of certain charities and religious services mentioned therein. Clause 6 of the settlement deed directed that the trustees shall after the expiry of one year from the time of his death obtain vacant possession of premises No. 7, South Mada Street, Triplicane and Nos. 31 and 35, Thulasingaperumal Koil Lane, Triplicane, from the tenants and convert them into a hostel for women belonging to any of the four communities of Hindus provided they are vegetarians and on payment of reasonable occupational charges as in vogue in Sree Venkateswara Students Hostel, Triplicane.

(2.) Certain complaints were received that the hostel for women was not being maintained properly. After a formal enquiry by the Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras the Government directed a full-fledged enquiry under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) by its memorandum dated 4th January, 1973. The Commissioner, in turn, authorised the Assistant Commissioner, Madras to conduct the enquiry. This was duly notified to, the trustees in office by memorandum, dated 10th February, 1973. The Assistant Commissioner enquired into the matter and submitted his report on 31st December, 1973. The Commissioner accordingly recommended to the Government the issue of a show cause notice to extend the provisions of the Act on the following grounds:

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner urges two points in support of the writ petition. Firstly, it is not a charity within the meaning of the Act and secondly, the petitioner had no effective opportunity to put forth its case. The learned Counsel relies on a decision of Ramakrishnan, J., reported in Venkata-rama Iyer v. Government of Madras.,1967 30 LW 613.