GANASALA GURUMURTHI RAO Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FOR HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT VIJAYAWADA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Appeal raises a question relating to the interpretation of section 58 (5) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. The circumstances that have culminated in this appeal are the following. The appellant is a trustee of Sri Satyanarayanaswami Temple situated in Kasimkota, Anakapalle Taluk. Allegations of maladministration of the affairs of this temple were made by persons interested in the temple in a petition sent by them to the concerned authorities. Having reason to believe that in the interests of proper administration of this temple a scheme should be settled for it, the Deputy Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Administration) Department, Vijayawada, issued a notice to the appellant to show cause why a scheme should not be settled for this temple and he gave him sufficient time for making his representations. He also set out the reasons which led him to the belief that a scheme should be settled for the temple in question. Pending further enquiry, the Deputy Commissioner appointed the Executive Officer of the Temple at Madugula to discharge the functions of the trustee and defined his powers and duties. The appellant carried the matter in revision to the Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments under section 18 of the Act but unsuccessfully. A further revision to the Government also proved unfruitful.

(2.) .Thereupon, the appellant moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to remove the order of the Deputy Commissioner mentioned above on certiorari. It was contended before our learned brother, Basi Reddy, J., who heard the "Writ Petition, that it was not competent for the Deputy Commissioner to pass the impugned order before he reached a decision that it was necessary to frame a scheme. This contention did not find favour with the learned Judge, who thought that subsection (5) empowered the Deputy Commissioner to make the necessary orders at any time after the initiation of proceedings. In the result, he dismissed the Writ Petition. It is this view of the learned Judge that is canvassed before us in this appeal on behalf of the trustee.

(3.) The same point is sought to be made by Mr. Anantha Babu, learned counsel for the appellant, before us. Before we deal with the argument advanced by the learned counsel, it is useful to reproduce section 58, in so far as it is of immediate relevancy :