SHANKAR MANDIR MARWADI AMMA Vs. ASSISTANT COM ENDOWMENTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri Shankar Mandir Manwadi Amna, represented by its Secretary Sri Mishrilal Vyas, has filed this writ petition challenging the order made by the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments, Hyderabad dated 28-7-78. By means of that order, the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments, Hyderabad, who is respon dent No. 1 of this writ petition, had appointed respondents 2,3,4,5 and 6 as non-hereditary trustees to Sri Shankarji Temple, Feelkhana, for a period of three years. This action has been taken by the first respondent in exercise of his nower under Section 15(3) of Act No 17 of 1966. Mr Venugopala Reddy, for the petitioner has raised four contentions in support of his plea that the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. I may mention that some of these contentions can be effectively adjudicated only on the assumption that the temple of Sri Shankarji is a denominationl temple founded by Shrimali Brahmins of Marwadi Amna, one of those countless sects in Hindu religious order. In the writ petition, it was asserted that Shrimali Brahmins of Marwadi Amna, form a distinct sect of Brabmins absolutely unconnected with the other Brabmins. Their 'kula devata' is Mahalakshmi and they worship Sbankar also but, their main worship is for Sri Lakshminarayana. It apppears that these Shrimali Brahmins worship also serpants etc , All these and more which have been mentioned in great detail in the affidavit may be true and may be sufficient to establish that Shrimali Brahmins from a district Sect. But, all that I say here is that this is a matter which, is better left alone for being investigated by a Civil Court, Even otherwise, that this temple of Sri Shankarji is founded by Shrimali Community would constitute an important fact in issue and I feel that is better done in a regularly constituted Civil action where evidence can be taken, witnesses can be cross-examined etc., by going through which process alone three vital questions of fact can be satisfactorily settled.

(2.) Even on the assumption that the temple is a denominational institution which is founded and managed exclusively by a denominational Sect of Shrimali Brahmins, it is not in doubt that the Assistant Commissioner has the power to constitute a Board of Trustees. But it is a limited power. In those circumstances it is argued that be could not have appointed persons other than those who belong to the Shrimali Sect as non-hereditary trustees. Mr.Venugopala Reddy for the petitioner argued that the Assistant Commissioner before constituting the Board of non-hereditary Trustees must have decided whether the temple of Sri Shankarji is a denominational temple of Shrimali Brahmins. His argument is that this is a condition precedent for the exercise of bis powers of constituting a Board of Trustees with persons belonging to other than Shrimali Sect. The very fact that the Assistant Commissioner the first respondent, has constituted a Board of Trustees consisting of persons other than Shrimali Sect must be deemed to furnish an answer to this argument. In the view of the Assistant Commissioner, the institution is not a denominational institution founded and managed exclusively by the Shrmali Brahmins.

(3.) This however, does not dispose of the case before me. There is one more submission made by Mr.Venugopala Reddy which attracted me a good deal and which is also backed by the clear authority of my learned brother Jeevan Reddy, J. In that writ petition, the petitioner claimed that from the time of his great grand-father, they have been the hereditary trustees of the temple in question and tne Assistant Commissioner acted illegally in appointing a Board of non-hereditary trustees without any notice to the writ peti ioner. The learned Judge allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of the Assistant Commissioner appointing a Board of nonhereditary trustets with a direction to the Assistant Commissioner to take fresh proceedings after giving notice to the writ petitioner. In that writ petition it was clearly stated by the learned Judge,