KANAKAIAH CHETTY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main question raised by Mr. Babul Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners in this case is that the Government has no power to entertain a revision under Sec. 83 of the A. P. Charitable & Hindu Religious Endowments Act (herein after called as the Act) against an interlocutory order passed by the Commissioner (pending a revision before him. A few facts may be stated.

(2.) The respondents 4 to 10 were appointed as non-hereditary trustees for for Sri Kanyakaparameswari Devasthanam, Chittoor, by the Assistant Commissioner Endowments by his order dated 17-8-1978. Against that order the petitioners, who claim that the said institution is a denominational institution, filed a revision before the joint Commissioner. Their contention is that the Assistant Commissioner had no power to appoint non-hereditary trustees for this institution. The revision was entertained by the Joint Commissioner who also granted an interim stay of the operation of the order of the Assistant Commissioner. Thereupon the non-hereditary trustees appeared before the Joint Commissioner and applied for vacating the interim stay. That was refused and the interim stay was made absolute. Against the order making the interim stay absolute, the non-hereditary trustees filed a revision before the Government under See. 83 of the Act which was entertained by the Government, which passed an interim order staying the operation of the orders of the Joint Commissioner pending disposal of the revision before the Government. It is the said order which is challenged in this writ petition.

(3.) Mr. Babul Reddy learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the language of Sec. 83 of the Act and particularly of sub-section (3) thereof, it must be held that no revision is maintainable against an interlocutory order passed by the Commissioner. I am unable to agree with the learned Counsel. Sub-sections (1) (2) and (3) of Sec. 83 of the Act read as follows; (1) The Government may suo motu or on an application call for and examine the record of the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner or Executive Officer of any trustee, not being the trustee of a math or specific endowment attached to a math, in respect of any proceeding not being a proceeding in respect of which a suit or an appeal or application or reference to a Court is provided by this Act, to satisfy themselves as to the regularity or propriety of any decision or order passed therein and if, in any case, it appears to the Government that such decision or order should be modified, annulled, reversed or remitted for reconsideration, they may pass orders accordingly. (2) The Government may stay the execution of any such decision or order pending the exercise of their powers under Sub-section (1) in respect thereof, (3) No application to the Government for the exercise of their power under this section shall be made in respect of the same matter to the Commissioner under Section 82 and had been disposed of by him." It would be appropriate to set out sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 82 of the Act as well. They are as follows: (1) The Commissioner may either Suo motu or on an application, call for and examine the record of any Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner, or of any trustee of a charitable or religious institution or endowment, other than a math or a specific endowment attached to a math, in respect of any proceeding under this Act, not being a proceeding in respect of which a suit or an appeal or application or reference to a Court is provided by this Act to satisfy himself as to the regularity of such proceeding or the correctness, legality or propriety of any decision or order taken or passed therein and if it appears to the Commissioner that such decision or order should be modified, annulled, reversed or remitted for reccnsideration, he may pass orders accordingly. (2) The Commissioner shall not pass any order prejudicial to any party under Sub-section (1) without giving him an opportunity for making representation. (3) The Commissioner may stay the execution of any decision or order of the nature referred to in Sub-section (1) pending the exercise of his powers under the said sub-section in respect thereof. Now a perusal of sub-section (1) of Sec. 83 of the Act would show that the Government can call for an examine the record of the Commissioner "in respect of any proceeding"(Of Course not being a proceeding in respect of which a suit or an appeal or application or revision to a court is provided by the Act)to satisfy themselves as to the regularity of such proceeding or the correctness, legality or propriety of any decision or order passed therein. It can pass appropriate orders thereon. There is no reason to give a restricted meaning to the words "any proceeding" which are words of wide import, more so when the power is to examine not only the regularity of such proceeding but also the correctness, legality or propriety of "any decision or order" passed therein. It may be that qualitatively both mean the same, but in the context it is obvious that they are used to denote different types of orders, A decision ordinarily cannotes a final decision while an order may not carry that meaning. In a Bench Decision of this Court in B. Ramaswamy vs. Joint Commissioner this court has made a distinction between the words "decision" and "order" occurring in Sec. 77 of the Act, and it is held that both words are not used synonymously. But Mr. Babul Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the scope of sub-section 1 of section 83 of the Act should be cut down in view of sub-section (3). But sub-section (3) merely says that no person shall approach the Government by way of revision without first approaching the Commissioner and still the matter has been disposed of by the Commissioner. Reading sub-section (3) and sub-section (1) together, it is clear that while it is open to the Government to suo motu call for and examine the record of the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner or Executive officer or trustee as the case may be, an application for revision by a private party against the orders of Deputy Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner etc., cannot be directly preferred to it and that such party has to first approach the Commissioner before approaching the Government. Sub-section (3) of Sec. 83 of the Act says not only the party must approach the Commissioner but that the Commissioner must also have disposed of the "matter". Mr. Babul Reddy says that the word "matter" signifies the revision petition as such and therefore he says that until the matter i. e., the revision petition, is disposed of by the Commissioner no revision is maintainable to the Government under Sub-section (1) of Section 83 of the Act. It is not possible to agree with this submission as well. There are no reasons to read the word "matter" as referring only to the revision, before the Commissioner. The word "matter" has not been defined nor is it a term of art. Therefore it must take its colour from the context. A perusal of Section 82 of the Act shows that the Commissioner is entertain a revision under sub-section (1) thereof, while sub-section of (3) of section 82 of the Act empowers him to pass interim orders pending such revision. Now take a case, where a revision is preferred to the Commissioner along with a stay petition. The Commissioner entertains the revision but dismiss the stay petition. The order dismissing the stay petition would be an order within the meaning of sub-section (3) of section 82 of the Act. There is no reason why it should not be called a "matter" for the purpose of sub-section (3) of Sec. 83 of the Act. As I have stated earlier, the language of sub-section (1) of Section 83 of the Act is quite wide and I do not see any valid reasons for curtailing its ordinary and natural meaning. Sub-section (3) of Sec. 83 of the Act in my opinion does not warrant such a restricted construction. For the above reasons the Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed but under the circumstances without costs. Advocate's fee : Rs. 150/-. It is however directed that the Government shall dispose of the revision before it as early as possible in accordance with law, preferably within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. WP. Dismissed.