Sundara Gowda Vs. Commissioner for Religious and Charitable Endowments and ors.

Sundara Gowda vs Commissioner for Religious and Charitable Endowments and ors.

Disposition Petition allowed Court Karnataka Decided Mar 17, 1999

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/386203

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/386203
Court: Karnataka High Court
Judge: V. Gopala Gowda, J.
Decided On: Mar 17, 1999
Case Number: Writ Petn. No. 1250 of 1997
Subject: Trusts and Societies
Disposition: Petition allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- Payment of subvention amount: [B.V.Nagarathana, J] Claim made by the petitioner college in respect of payments to be made by the First respondent towards subvention -Rejection of claim Challenge as to Mandamus sought to the First Respondent to pay subvention amount for the academic year 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 -...

Key legal issue: Trusts and Societies
Outcome / disposition: Petition allowed
Acts & sections: Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 - Sections 39

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sundara Gowda

Advocate K. Raghavendra Rao, Adv.

Respondent

Commissioner for Religious and Charitable Endowments and ors.

Advocate R. Mehaboob Ali Khan, A.G.A. and ;A. Keshava Bhat, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 - Sections 39
Reported In: AIR1999Kant426

Excerpt

.....that by virtue of the order dated 11.8.1995, the payment of subvention by the central government to the respective colleges had acquired right to the subvention fee until otherwise held by the larger bench in tma pai foundation case and further the fact that the law declared in tma pai foundation was to become effective only from the succeeding academic year i.e., 2003-04 onwards, all actions taken by virtue of the interim order dated 11.8.95 have to be held to be valid and continued till the academic year 2003-04 is already noted. considering the fact that the opinion of the apex court that the tma pai foundation case was rendered after the commencement of the academic year 2002-03 supreme court in its wisdom thought it fit to apply the law declared in the said case prospectively from the academic year 2003-04 onwards, so that all admissions made even in the academic year 2002-03 under the scheme of unnikrishnans case [unnikrishnan v state of a.p., air 1993 sc 2178]were validated and were not to be questioned in any court of law in the interest of students as the said scheme was over ruled in tma pai foundation case. the students who were admitted prior to the academic year 2002-03 in the petitioner/college created a right in favour of the petitioner/college to receive subvention in respect of such students until they completed the courts or for a period of five years whichever is earlier despite the order of the supreme court in t.m.a. pai foundation case. as far as the students who are admitted in the academic year 2002-03 is concerned, it is not in dispute that the said students were admitted as per the scheme in unnikrishnans case prior to the judgment delivered in t.m.a.pai foundation case. under the circumstances the interim order dated 11.8.1995 was applicable to even those students who were admitted prior to the judgment in t.m.a. pai foundation case and therefore covered under the terms of the said interim order. hence in respect of students who were..........under the act is bad in law and set aside the same, the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent is valid in law and shall not be interfered with by this court.3. the impugned order is passed by the 3rd respondent in exercise of purported rule 17 of the rules of the department. learned addl. govt. advocate is unable to produce the rule referred to in the impugned order despite granting time. therefore, it has to be presumed that the impugned order is without the authority of law.4. the earlier proceedings relating to this temple would reveal that the same is governed by the provisions of the madras hindu religious and charitable endowments act. the matter revolves round the appointment of trustees to the temple. section 39(1) of the said act stipulates that in respect of the religious institution over which there is no 'area committee', the commissioner shall constitute board of trustees consisting not less than three and not more than five persons. in the instant case, the commissioner has not passed any order. no material is placed before the court to show that 'area committee' was constituted in accordance with the provisions of the act. learned addl. govt. advocate is unable to point out that the 3rd respondent has got power to pass the impugned order. it is not the case of the 3rd respondent that he has passed the impugned order exercising the power under section 39 of the act. mr. raghavendra rao, learned counsel for the petitioner was right in submitting that the impugned order is without the authority of law. the impugned order is not passed by the competent authority. in spite of the direction issued by this court to respondents 1 to 3 to file statement of objections in justification of the impugned order, the same is not filed. consequently, it has to be held that the impugned order is bad in law and the same is liable to be quashed.5. accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. the impugned order at annexure-f is quashed.6. in view of the.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

V. Gopala Gowda, J.

1. The petitioner has sought for quashing the impugned order at Annexure-F, dated 12-12-1996 by which the 3rd respondent Asst. Commissioner for Religious and Charitable Endowments, Mangalore, has appointed respondents 5 to 13 as the Trustees and among them the 5th respondent as the Managing Trustee of Rajan Daiva Chavadi, a temple in Sulya Taluk for a period of five years.

2. Mr. A. Keshava Bhat, learned counsel for the 5th respondent submits that the Deputy Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Dakshina Kannada, under Annexure-D in Case No. LAW.CR 57/89-90 has held that the aforesaid temple is not a 'Religious Institution' and that order has become final. It is his further submission that unless the Civil Courtdeclare that the decision of the Competent Authority under the Act is bad in law and set aside the same, the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent is valid in law and shall not be interfered with by this Court.

3. The impugned order is passed by the 3rd respondent in exercise of purported Rule 17 of the Rules of the Department. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate is unable to produce the Rule referred to in the impugned order despite granting time. Therefore, it has to be presumed that the impugned order is without the authority of law.

4. The earlier proceedings relating to this temple would reveal that the same is governed by the provisions of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. The matter revolves round the appointment of trustees to the temple. Section 39(1) of the said Act stipulates that in respect of the religious institution over which there is no 'Area Committee', the Commissioner shall constitute Board of Trustees consisting not less than three and not more than five persons. In the instant case, the Commissioner has not passed any order. No material is placed before the Court to show that 'Area Committee' was constituted in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate is unable to point out that the 3rd respondent has got power to pass the impugned order. It is not the case of the 3rd respondent that he has passed the impugned order exercising the power under Section 39 of the Act. Mr. Raghavendra Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner was right in submitting that the impugned order is without the authority of law. The impugned order is not passed by the competent authority. In spite of the direction issued by this Court to respondents 1 to 3 to file statement of objections in justification of the impugned order, the same is not filed. Consequently, it has to be held that the impugned order is bad in law and the same is liable to be quashed.

5. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order at Annexure-F is quashed.

6. In view of the quashing of the impugnedorder, respondents 1 to 3 are at liberty to take appropriate action for the maintenance and administration of the institution in accordance with the provisions of the aforesaid Act.

Same Court & Year Karnataka · 1999 Same Parties Sundara Gowda vs Commissioner for Religious and Charitable En... Same Subject Trusts and Societies Same Judge V. Gopala Gowda, J. Acts & Sections Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 - ...

Trusts and Societies