ORDER
1. The action of the Government of Andhra Pradesh and Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams (T.T.D.) according sanction to release Rs.25 crores for the scheme of supply of water from Kailasagiri Reservoir to Tirupathi Town; Rs. 12 crores for the scheme of under-ground drainage in Tirupathi Town and Rs.12.10 crores for the development and maintenance of 10 roads in and around Tirupathi Town from the funds of T.T.D. is under challenge in this writ petition by way of public interest litigation mainly on the ground that the funds of Hindu Religious Institutions like T.T.D. cannot be diverted for secular purposes.
2. Sri S. Ramachandra Rao, learned senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner,Sri J.S.N. Chowdary, a resident of Guntur, in his usual emphatic style maintains that there is constitutional bar on the Government as well as T.T.D. to expend the funds of T.T.D. for the aforesaid purposes, which according to him, are essentially secular in character. To buttress his submission, he places strong reliance on Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India.
3. Article 25 guarantees to all persons in India 'Freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion' subject to restrictions imposed by the State on public order, morality and health and other provisions of Part-III of the Constitution.
4. Black's Law Dictionary explains the meaning of 'Conscience', 'profess', 'practice' and 'propagate' as under :
Conscience : The moral sense; the faculty of judging the moral qualities of actions, or of discriminating between right and wrong; particularly applied to one's perception and judgment of the moral qualities of his own conduct, but in a wider sense, denoting a similar application of the standards of morality to the acts of others. The sense of right and wrong inherent in every person by virtue of his existence as a social entity; good conscience being a synonym of equity. In law, especially the moral rule which requires probity, justice and honest dealing between man and man, as when we say that a bargain is 'against conscience' or unconscionable,' or that the price paid for property at a forced sale was so inadequate as to 'shock the conscience'. This is also the meaning of the term as applied to the jurisdiction and principles of decision of Courts of Chancery, as in saying that such a Court is a 'Court of conscience', that it proceeds 'according to conscience,' or that it has cognizance of 'matters of conscience.'
Profess : To make open declaration of, to make public declaration or avowal.
Practice : Repeated or customary action; liabitual performance; a succession of acts of similar kind; custom; usage. Application of science to the wants of men. The exercise of any profession.....'
Propagate : To cause to spread.
It would thus appear that freedom of conscience has no necessary connection with any particular religion or of any faith in God. However, the right to profess, practice and propagate is intrinsically connected with religion or religious affairs or practices. But in the case on hand, we are not concerned either with freedom of conscience of any individual or group of individuals or with his or their right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion, for it is not even alleged that either the petitioner's freedom of conscience or his right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion or of any one else is infringed by the proposed schemes or the impugned action of the respondents. Thus, this article, in my considered view, docs not in any way render the impugned action of the respondents either impermissible or illegal.
5. Article 26, which guarantees freedom to manage religious affairs, reads as under:
'Subject to public order, morality and health, every religious denomination or any section thereof shall have the right-
(a) to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes;
(b) to manage its own affairs in matters of religion;
(c) to own and acquire movable and immovable property; and
(d) to administer such property in accordance with law.'
It is thus apparent that while Article 25 extends to all persons, Article 26 is confined to only religions denominations or any section thereof.
6. In The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. SriLakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mull, 1954 SCR 1005, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the question as to what is the precise meaning or connotation of the expression 'religious denomination' and whether a Math could come within this expression, Mukherjee, J as he then was, speaking for the Court analysed the question as under:
'The word 'denomination' has been defined in the Oxford Dictionary to mean 'a collection of individuals classed together under the same name : a religious sect or body having a common faith and organisation and designated by a distinctive name.' It is well known that the practice of setting up Maths as centres of theological teaching was started by Shri Sankaracharya and was followed by various teachers since then. After Sankara, came a galaxy of religious teachers and philosophers who founded the different sects and sub-sects of the Hindu religion that we find in India at the present day- Each one of such sects or sub-sects can certainly be called a religious denomination, as it is designated by a distinctive name, - in many cases it is the name of the founder, - and has a common faith and common spiritual organization. The followers of Ramanuja, who are known by the name of Shri Vaishnabas, undoubtedly constitute a religious denomination; and so do the followers of Madhwacharya and other religious teachers. It is a fact well established by tradition that the eight Udipi Maths were founded by Madhwacharya himself and the trustees and the beneficiaries of these Maths profess to be followers of that teacher. The High Court has found that the Math in question is in charge of the Sivalli Brahmins who constitute a section of the followers of Madhwacharya. As Article 26 contemplates not merely a religious denomination but also a section thereof, the Math or the spiritual fraternityrepresented by it can legitimately come within the purview of this article.''
7. In conclusion, it has been held therein that Shri Shirur Math can be regarded as a 'religious denomination' for the purpose of Article 26,
8. In S.P. Mittal v. Union of India, : [1983]1SCR729 it has been stated :
'The words 'religious denomination' in Article 26 of the Constitution must take their colour from the word 'religion' and if this be so, the expression 'religious denomination' must also satisfy three conditions :
1. It must be a collection of individuals who have a system of beliefs or doctrines which they regard as conducive to their spiritual well-beling, that is, a common faith;
2. Common organisation; and
3. designation by a distinctive name.''
Then in Jagadishwaranand v. Police Commissioner, Calcutta, AIR 1984 SC 51 it has been found that Anand Margis satisfies the above mentioned three conditions and therefore it can be appropriately treated as a religious denomination, within the Hindu religion.
9. It would thus appear that Article 26 mainly deals with the right of a religious denominations or a section thereof; but its applicability to religious institutions like T.T.D. is rather limited in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Sri Adi Visheshwara of Kashi Viswanath Temple v. State of U.P., : [1997]2SCR1086 and Sri Kanyaka Parameswari Anna Satram Committee v. Commissioner, Hindu Religious Charitable and Endowments, : [1997]3SCR402 . In the former one, it has been held that the temple of Lord Sri Viswanath at Varanasi is not a denomination temple. In the latter one it has been held that the Hindu sections of the Arya Vysya community who worship GoddessMatha Kanyakaparameswari are not a denominational section for the purpose of Article 26(b) and 26(d) of the Constitution. At any rate, State's power to legislate on the property held by either a religious denomination or a religious institution is beyond dispute.
10. A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (Act No.30 of 1987) (for short 'the Act') was enacted by the Legislative Assembly of the State of Andhra Pradesh and it received the assent of the President of India on 15th May, 1987. Its constitutional validity' was upheld by the Supreme Court in A.S. Narayana Deekshitulu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, : [1996]3SCR543 .
11. In the Act there are various provisions that deal with the religious as well as secular aspects of T.T.D.
12. Section 2(28) of the Act defines 'T.T.D.' as under:
'Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams means the temples specified in the First Schedule and the endowments and properties thereof and shall include the educational institutions and the other institutions specified in the Second Schedule and the endowments and properties thereof and Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams shall be deemed to be constituted into a single religious institution for the purposes of this Act.'
The following temples are specified in the First Schedule.
'I. The temple of Sri Venkateswaraswami on Tirumala Hills with the sub-temple of:
1. Sri Varahaswami,
2. Sri Bhashayakarulavari Temple No.1,
3. Sri Bedi Hanumantharayaswami,
4. Sri Kshetrapalaka,
5. Sri Deva Bashyakarlu,
6. Sri Anjaneyaswami (in front of Sri Varahaswami)
II. The temple of Sri Govindarajaswami at Tirupati with the sub-temples of-
1. Sri Saley Nancharamma,
2. Sri Choodikodutta Nancharamma (Sri Andal),
3. Sri Madal Alwar,
4. Sri Chakrath Alwar,
5. Sri Madhurakavi Alwar,
6. Sri Anjaneyaswami (Near Dhwajasthambham),
7. Sri Anjaneyaswami (Near Pedda Bugga),
8. Sri Manavala Mahamuni,
9. Sri Nammalwar,
10. Sri Vedanta Desikulu,
11.Sri Woolu Alwar,
12. Sri Tirumala Nambi,
13. Sri Bhashyakarulu No.II,
14. Sri Tirumangal Alwar,
15. Sri Kurath Alwar,
16. Sri Sanjeevarayaswami,
17. Sri Parthasarathiswami,
18. Sri Venkateshwaraswami,
III. The temple of Sri Kodandaramaswami at Tirupathi.
IV. The temple of Sri Kapileswaraswami at Tirupathi.
V. Sri Padmavathi's temple at Tiruchamir, with sub-temples of -
1. Sri Krishnaswami,
2. Sri Suryanarayanaswami, and
3. Sri Sundararajaswami
VI. Sri Kalyana Venkateswaraswami Temple at Narayanavaram with the sub-temples of -
1. Sri Agasteeswaraswamy,
2. Sri Papeswaraswamy,
3. Sri Avanakshiyamma,
4. Sri Veerabhadraswamy,
5. Sri Sakthivinayakar,
VII. Sri Venkateswaraswamy temple at Mangapuram.
VIII. Sri Vedanarayanaswamy temple at Nagalapuram.
IX. Sri Chandramouleswarasvvamy and Sri Venkateswaraswamy temples in the Andhra Ashram at Rishikesh.
X. Any other minor temple attached to any of the above temples and not specifically mentioned above.'
It is clear from the above that though the main temple of Sri Venkateswara Swamy is on Tirumala Hills, there are also number of other temples at Timpathi, Tiruchanur and Mangapurarn.
It is also clear that apart from the temples, number of Educational Institutions and other Institutions listed in Second Schedule are located at Tirupathi,
13. It is known to one and all that Tirupathi Town, located at the foot of Tirumala Hills, is the base for the pilgrims or worshippers who wish to visit Tirumala, the abode of Lord Venkateswara Swami popularly known as 'Srivaru' or 'Balaji. Thus, the obligation of TTD to produce basic amenities for the convenience of pilgrims or worshippers at Tirupathi needs no special emphasis. It is the specific case of the respondents that the proposed schemes are for the benefit or convenience of the devotees or worshippers of Lord Vcnkateswara.
14. The counter affidavits filed on behalf of the 1st and 2nd respondents, though separate,arc almost similar. Their cases with regard to the scheme of supply of water from Kailasagiri Reservoir is elaborately set out in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit- It reads :
'.... in view of huge inflow of pilgrims and insufficient existing water source, the T.T.D. Board had resolved in Res.No.249 dated 10-8-1995 to request the Government to identify a dependable water source to permanently answer the pressing need of the water to Tirupati town. It was further resolved by the Board, that the T.T.D. to take up in a substantial manner the funding for the water supply scheme which would benefit the pilgrim public and request the Government to exempt T.T.D. from paying Municipal and other property taxes for its properties all over. It was also resolved by the T.T.D, Board that after meeting the T.T.D. requirements the modalities would be worked out with regard to cost of project. Accordingly the Government was addressed in the matter. The Irrigation Department has identified the scheme of pumping water from Kailasagiri Reservoir from K.P. canal as the most reliable and dependable source and accordingly the Government in G.O.Ms.No.145, dated 27-9-1995 and G.O.Ms.No.149 dated 29-9-95 accorded sanction for the said scheme at a cost of Rs.25.00 crores to supply 1 TMC of assured drinking water to the Tirupati town with funds to be released as a loan initially by the T.T.D. Later this scheme was worked out at Rs.44.50 crores in G.O.Ms.No.39, M.A, dated 31-1-96 of which the contribution of T.T.D. is Rs.25.00 crores as a loan to the said scheme and the Government was requested to accord sanction for the same and also to exempt the T.T.D. from payment of Municipal taxes and other taxes in respect of buildings and other properties in T.T.D. all over the State. The Government in G.O.Ms.No.248 dated 23-5-1996 approved the revised estimate for Rs.50.97 crores of which the contribution of T.T.D. raised to Rs.49.47 crores. The T.T.D. Board inRcs.No.442 dated 7-8-1996 examined the above issue and resolved that the Government may be requested to limit the liability of T.T.D. to Rs.25.00 crores on loan basis as per the earlier commitment. The Government was accordingly addressed and the Government in G.O.Ms.No.45 dated 20-1-1997 agreed to the above proposal of the T.T.D. Board, limiting the liability of T.T.D. to Rs.25.00 crores, pending decision on other issues connected with procedural infirmity.''
Likewise, the details of the scheme of underground drainage are set out in paragraph 6. They read :
'..... the T.T.D. Board in Rcs.No.7 dated 21-4-84 resolved to take up underground drainage scheme of Tirupati town at a cost of Rs.3.00 crores and the Government in G.O.Ms.No.294, Revenue (Endts.III) Department dated 26-3-1985 accorded sanction for Rs.3.00 crores from the T.T.D. surplus funds for the said scheme for the benefit of pilgrims and worshippers, as per the Act 20 of 1979. Subsequently, the T.T.D. Board in Rcs.No.507 dated 24-9-1988 resolved that the Tirupati Municipality may be requested to handover the Sewage Farm Land to T.T.D. in lieu of T.T.D. taking up the drainage scheme. The Tirupati Municipality initially declined to hand over the land. I submit that subsequently the Tirupati Municipality by its letter dated 12-1-1993 has stated that the Municipal Council has passed a resolution to handover the land of Ac. 13.64 cents to T.T.D. The subject has been placed before the T.T.D. specified authority and the authority in Rcs.No.857 dated 28-1-1993 has sanctioned Rs.12.00 crores for the said scheme and also resolved to request the Tirupati Municipality to alienate the Ac. 13.64 cents of land in favour of T.T.D. which is situated near R.T.C. Bus-stand, Tirupati. This land is prime property and is required to construct cottages for the pilgrims in view of shortage of cottages, scarcity of water and other amenities atTirumala. Further it is also resolved that the amount of Rs.12.00 crores agreed as a contribution by the T.T.D. shall be released in instalments after studying the progress of works from time to time.
The Government in G,O.Ms.No.425 M.A.dated 12-7-93 has permitted the Tirupati Municipality to alienate the Municipal land in favour of T.T.D. to an extent of Ac.13.64. Accordingly, the Tirupathi Municipality has handed over the land to T.T.D. on 26-8-1993. According to the progress of work, the T.T.D. is releasing the amounts to the Executive Engineer (UDS), P.H. Department.'
Development of roads and communications has been dealt with in paragraph 7 as under :
'..... as a part of development of roads and communications for the convenience of pilgrims and worshippers the T.T.D. has requested the Government to hand over certain roads in Tirupati town to T.T.D. for maintenance and accordingly the Government in G.O.Ms.No.2033, M.A. dated 31-12-1986 handed over 9 roads of Tirupati Municipality to T.T.D. and later on the T.T.D. in its 'letter dated 5-1-1996 addressed the Government that the T.T.D. prepared to take over 10 roads in Schedule(A) and 6 roads in Schedule(B) arc proposed to be maintained by the R&B; Department and requested the Government to accord necessary sanction. The Government in G.O.Ms.No.392 dated 20-5-1996 accorded necessary sanction for the above proposal. Accordingly the T.T. D. will provide necessary funds to R&B; Department. The R&B; Department has estimated the cost of development of road from Tirupati to Tiruchanoor at Rs.370.00 lakhs and that from Tiruchanoor to Pudi at Rs.840.00 lakhs (Total cost Rs.12.10 crores). The road leading from Renigunta to Tirupati has become congested due to increase in inflow of pilgrim traffic to Tirupati town, leading to many accidents in the road. Hence, the development ofroad from Tirupati to Pudi (via) Tiruchanoor will relieve lot of congession on Tirupati-Renigunta road. Besides the importance of Tiruchanoor where Sri Padmavati Ammavari Temple is situated will get enhanced and the flow of pilgrims to this temple will increase substantially. Accordingly the T.T.D. Board in Res.No.737 dated 25-3-1996 agreed to the above proposals and resolved to place the funds of Rs.370.00 lakhs for improvement of road and Tirupati to Tiruchanoor and to release Rs.840.00 lakhs as interest free loan to R&B; Department for development of road from Tiruchanoor to Pudi. The Government in G.O.Ms. No.414 dated 30-5-1996 accorded sanction for the said scheme for Rs.12.10 crores.'
15. It is clear from the above that the entire cost of the proposed schemes is not met by the T.T.D, Moreover, in lieu of Rs.49.10 crores the T.T.D. has agreed to release, the Tirupati Municipality has transferred Ac. 13.64 cents of prime land situate at Tirupati in favour of T.T.D. through sale deed dated 26-8-1993. It is significant to note that the T.T.D. is very much in need of the said land for the purpose of constructing cottages for the pilgrims in view of shortage of cottages, scarcity of water and other amenities at Tirumala. There is, thus, absolutely no reason to think that the proposed schemes are not for the benefit of the pilgrim that would visit Tirupati and Tirumala.
16. Then remains the power of the respondents to sanction or release of the funds of T.T.D. for the proposed schemes. First, I will deal with the power of T.T.D. Chapter XIV of the Act deals with T.T.D. Section 96(1) provides that:
'There shall be a Board constituted by the Government for the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams consisting of not more than thirteen members; including the Chairman, to be appointed by the Government of whom
Section 97 deals with the powers and functions of the Board. It reads :
'The Board shall in addition to the powers conferred and functions entrusted to it by this Act, exercise such other powers and perform such other functions as may be prescribed in regard to matters of policy and general superintendence and review in relation to the Administration of Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams having due regard to public interest and the services and amenities to be provided to and welfare safety measures to be undertaken for the pilgrims, devotees and worshippers resorting to Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams.'
17. There is no dispute that the Government constituted the Board for the T.T.D. as contemplated under Section 96. Copies of all relevant resolutions passed by the T.T.D. Board have been filed as material papers on behalf of the respondents. On careful perusal of the same, I find no basis to hold that they are beyond the powers conferred on the Board under Section 97 of the Act.
18. Section 111 of the Act deals with the funds of T.T.D. Sub-section (1) thereof provides that:
'The Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanamsshall have its own funds, the corpus ofwhich shall include all the amounts receivedby it by way of donations, gifts; kanukasincluding offerings deposited in Hundis andany income from any other source and allpayments by Tirumala TirupathiDevasthanams shall be made from the saidfunds.
Sub-section 4 thereof provides that: : .
'The funds of Tirumala TirupathiDevasthanams may be utilised for all orany of the following purposes and also forany other purpose permitted by any otherprovisions of the Act: :
(i) xxxxx;
(ii) xxxxx;
(iii) x x x x x;
(iv) xxxxx;
(v) xxxxx;
(vi) xxxxx;
(vii) provision of water supply and other sanitary arrangements to the pilgrims and worshippers;
(viiii) xxxxx;
(ix) construction and maintenance of roads and communications and the lighting thereof for the convenience of the pilgrims and worshippers;
(x) xxxxx;
(xi) xxxxx;
(xii) any work or undertaking for purposes of the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams authorised by the Government; and
(xiii) xxxxx.'
19. It has already been held that the proposed schemes are for the benefit or convenience of the pilgrims or worshippers that visit Tirupathi and Tirumala. There can, therefore, be little doubt that the execution of the schemes of supply of water from Kailasagiri Reservoir and underground drainage is covered by clause (vii) and the scheme for development of roads and communications is covered by clause (ix).
20. Now, I will deal with the power of the Government to sanction the funds of TTD for the proposed schemes. On this aspect, it is enough to refer to Clause XII of sub-section (4) of Section 111 of the Act, which is already extracted above. In view of my finding that the proposed schemes are for the benefit of the pilgrims that visit Tirupati and Tirumala, there should be no hesitation to hold that the Government acted well within its powers.
21. A mighty religious institution like T.T.D. will have many functions, religious aswell as secular. It is clear from the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 111 of the Act that the funds of T.T.D. may be utilised for religious as well as secular purposes. The only restriction or limitation with regard to utilisation of funds for secular purposes is that such purposes should be primarily meant for the benefit of pilgrims or worshippers of Lord Venkateswara. In the case on hand, there is enough material to show that the proposed schemes are very much for the benefit of the pilgrims, devotees or worshippers of Lord Venkateswara. May be, the said schemes may also benefit others. Such an eventuality is inevitable on many occasions. For example, the ghat roads laid from Tirupati to Tirumala and lighting and other amenities provided all along the path-way from Tirupathi to Tirumala are primarily meant for the benefit of the pilgrims. But, infact, they are being used by all. On that score, there cannot be a direction to TTD not to utilise its funds for their maintenance. Considered from this perspective, there should be no hesitation to hold that the impugned action of the respondents does not suffer from any constitutional or statutory infirmity. The writ petition, is, therefore, devoid of substance. It is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.