M SAMBASIVA RAO Vs. K RAMA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) This appeal has been preferred, in our opinion, by a busy body, who, in the language of the Supreme Court, is a meddlesome interloper, and has brought some sort of allegations to the notice of the State Government and the State Government has chosen to act upon his representation without any semblance of verification of the allegations and without following any known procedure of law. The allegations of abuse of the position of the hereditary trustee including misappropriation of the income of the charitable trust concerned were treated so casually that without caring who would act in place of the hereditary trustee, the Government ordered for his suspension. Learned single Judge has, though for other reasons, rightly held that the Government has acted without jurisdiction (prima facie, for suspending the Government's order).

(3.) In the instant case, in our opinion, it will be fair if the hereditary trustee is asked to clarify his position and explain to the satisfaction of the competent authority that he has not acted against the interests of the trust and that he has in any manner been involved in misappropriation of any property belonging to the trust, but at the same time the Government, which, in the circumstances, is only acting as a statutory authority and exercising revisional power, is told that it has no such arbitrary power that it can do anything it likes. As a statutory authority it has to act in accordance with the known principles of law and strictly in accordance with and within the bounds of the law which has vested it with the revisional power.