MUDDUKUTI SURYA RAO Vs. Y VENKATARAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In an application filed under Sec. 87 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowements Act (hereinafter called the Act, by the respondent herein claiming to be the Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Sri Malleswaraswamywari Temple against the election of Chairman of the Board of the Trustee the petitions herein, it was contended that the respondent was not a legally elected Chairman, that the Commissioner had no power to delegate to the Assistant Commissioner the power of appointment and that the election of the petitioner as Chairman of the Board of Trustees was also invalid, as it is contrary to rules.

(2.) As stated earlier, this is a petition under Sec. 87 of the Act wherein the relief sought was to direct the respondent to hand over the accounts and other records of the Temple, as the petitioner had been appointed Chairman of the Board of Trustees. Sec. 87 of the Act provides a speedy mode of relief to the officer appointed under the Act for the recovery of the properties of Temple, records etc., from the previous trustee, etc. On applying the same to Magistrate, the Magistrate shall direct the production of the order of appointment, delivery to the person appointed as aforesaid of the possession of such religious institution or the records accounts and properties thereof, as the case may be.

(3.) One would expect regarding this Sec. that the production of certificate by the Commissioner was the pre-requisite for an order under this Sec. and the Magistrate was not justified in scrutinising the validity of the order made by the Commissioner before making any order under this Sec. . But, a Bench of this Court in Kuntanukala Satyanarayana v. Sri Ramalingeswaraswami Temple represented by the Chairman; Board of Trustees, Venkataratnam1, has held that the objection; as to the appointment of the Chairman not being valid has to be determined by the Magistrate, as if it has been raised before the Magistrate for the purposes of jurisdiction. If the production of certificate that a person is elected as Chairman is challenged on the ground that it does not disclose valid election, then that question will go to the root of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate, and will have to be determined by him. If it is a valid election, then no other question arises and he would have to pass necessary orders under Sec. 87 of the Act. But if it is not a valid election the respondent would not be entitled to any order under Sec. 87 of the Act". In that view, it has to be ascertained whether the objections raised in this petition, namely, as to the appointment of the Trustees, delegation of power and as to the election of the Chairman, are tenable, and the Magistrate has answered them according to the Act and the rules framed thereunder.