A RAJAIAH Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that arises in this case and which, in our judgment, has to be answered in the affirmative is:

(2.) The facts of the case, in brief, are: The appellant and the 3rd respondent herein, along with five other persons, were appointed as non-hereditary trustees of Sri Ujjaini Mabankalt Temple, Secunderabad, by the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments. Hyderabad, on 16-8-1977. The Deputy Commissioner, by another proceeding of the same date, called upon the members of the board of trustees to assemble for a special meeting to be held on 26-8-1977 for electing a Chairman. Only four members attended the meeting; and since according to the Rules, the quorum is five, the meeting was adjourned after administering the oath of office to the four members. Another meeting of the Board was convened on 9-9 1977 for the same purpose. The said meeting also was adjourned because the three members, who did not attend previously, again failed to attend the second meeting. Sometime thereafter, three members, including the appellant, sent explanations for their absence at the said two meetings. The final result of any action or inaction over the said explanations by the authority concerned, is not clear from the material on record. Be that as it may, on 17-9-1977, the Assistant Commissioner administured the oath to the said three members. By his proceedings dated 7-12-1977, the Deputy Commissioner nominated the appellant as the Chairman of the Board of Trustees under Section 17 (1) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act (Here inafter referred to as 'the Act'), on the ground that no Chairman was elected within 60 days. As against that, a revision preferred by the aggrieved members to the Government was allowed by setting aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner. The said re visional order was impugned in W.P. No. 4436 of 1979 by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, and the same has been dismissed. Hence this Writ Appeal.

(3.) The order under appeal is challenged on two grounds: firstly the learned single judge, having held that the reasons adopted by the government for setting aside the nomination of the Chairman by the Deputy Commissioner, are not properly founded, yet justified the order, which is erroneous; and secondly, the learned judge wrongly held, while construing the provisions of Section 17(1) read with, in particular, Rule 5 of the Rules framed under Section 17, that more than two special meetings could be convened for electing the Chairman of the Board of Trustees. Before adverting to the analysis of the arguments, the necessary relevant provisions of the statute and the rules may be noticed. Section 15 empowers certain authorities to constitute a Board of Trustees In this case, the board of trustees comprising seven members was constituted by the Deputy Commissioner. So the relevant provision under Section 15. Section 15 is as under: