SRI TRIVIKRAMA RAMANANDA BHARATHI SWAMI SRI SIDHESWARI PEEDADHIPATHI Vs. THE COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIONS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri Siddheswari Peetam, popularly known as Sri Mounaswami Mutt (Math), Courtallam was founded at the turn of the century by His Holiness Sri Sivachidananada Saraswathi Swamigal. Out of the Padakanikas, the Swamigal acquired properties, agricultural lands and thopes. He also constructed the math, mandirs and quarters in the campus and called it 'Sri Dattatraya Mandiram'. By his Will, dated 26.12.1943, he made a provision for a hereditary and perpetual succession of the Peedadhipatis. The math was exempted from the provisions of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act 11 of 1927 till April, 1947. At the time of filing of the writ petitions, His Holiness Sri Trivikrama Ramananda Bharali Swami was the Peedadhipathi. He is said to have attained Siddhi on 23.7.1981. His nominee and his successor is His Holiness Sri Siva Chidananda Bharathi Swamigal, who assumed office on 12.1.1991. Writ Miscellaneous Petition No. 3582 of 1994 in Writ Petition No. 2695 of 1982 to bring on record the said His Holiness Sri Siva Chidananda Bharathi is accordingly allowed. The Madras Act 2 of 1927 was repelled and replaced by the Madras Act 19 of 1951. Under the latter Act, the temples and mutts were treated on the same footing as a religious institution. In the famous case viz., Sirur Math case (1952) 1 MLJ 557), the Supreme Court of India struck down several provisions of the 1951 Act, in so far as they were applicable to mutts. The levy of contribution payable to the Government was struck down on the ground that it amounted to a tax and there was no quid pro quo for the same. Consequently, by amending Act 27 of 1954, the Judgment of the Apex Court was given effect to. Thereafter, the present Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 22 of 1959 (hereinafter called as the Act) was enacted. In this Act also, Sec. 6(13) defines mutt as a religious institution with properties attached thereto and presided over by a person. The word 'religious institution' is defined in Sec. 6(18) of the Act as a mutt temple or specific endowment. However, in view of the special position and status of a mutt as recognised by the Apex Court, the Act exempts mutt from the several provisions of the Act viz., Ss. 21, 35. 36, 44 to 58 and 71 to 76 of the Act. Sec. 23 of the Act has been held to be inapplicable to the mutts. Sec. 105(b) of the Act prevents the interference with any religious or spiritual functions of the head of a mutt. Sec. 107 of the Act says that the relevant provisions of the Act cannot intervene with the rights conferred on any religious denomination or any Sec. thereof attracted by Article 26 of the Constitution of India. We are concerned in these writ petitions only with the levy of fees on religious in situations. Sec. 76 of 1951 Act provided of the levy of contribution fees and audit Sees That provision of law was struck down by the Supreme Court in Sirur Math case (cited supra). Consequently, an amendment was made by providing for payment of the contribution fees to the Commissioner in respect of the service rendered by the institution Similarly audit fees not exceeding 1 -1/2 per cent was made payable to the Commissioner for meeting the departmental auditing of accounts. Under the present Act 22 of 1959, Chapter IX is. captioned as 'Finance' Sec. 92 of the Act provides for payment of annual contribution to the Commissioner. Sec. 93 of the Act provides for recovery of costs and expenses incurred on legal proceedings. Sec. 94 of the Act provides for manner and method of recovery of the contribution and charges. Similarly rules have been framed called "Assessment Levy, Recovery of Contribution, Costs Rules"'. The Rules split the payment of annual contribution on a percentage of the income at the rates specified in the label on a grade scale, ranging from 2 per cent on income no exceeding Rs. 1,000/ - to 7 per cent on income: exceeding Rs. 2 lakhs.

(2.) Upto faslis 1380, the petitioner had paid contribution and audit fees against the demand made on 25.11.1972. The petitioner sent objections. Those objections were rejected on 4.2.1982 and in respect of the subsequent faslis, the petitioner has been raising objections. The contention of the petitioner is that the levy of fees in unlawful and ultra vires the Constitution of India. It is particularly stressed that mutts are denominational in nature and very little services are rendered by the department and they cannot be treated on par with temples and consequently, the exaction of lees without corresponding services is illegal. Writ Petition No. 13474 of 1988 was occasioned because of the amending Act 2 of 1987, in and by which the maximum levy of contribution and audit fees were raised to 10 per cent and 4 per cent respectively. The grounds of objection are set out as follows:

(3.) Counter affidavits have been filed in both the writ petitions, justifying the levy of contribution and audit fees. It is also pointed out that there are a number of decisions of the Supreme Court as well as this Court, which upheld the validity of the levy and therefore it is contended that both the writ petitions do not deserve for consideration. In particular, reference is made to the amendment of the rules made in 1987, giving details of the levy and also to the statement of account of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Department showing the net deficit of all the years commencing from 1977 -78 to 1989 -90."