Srikantadatta Narasimharaja Wodeyar, Mysore Vs. State of Karnataka and Others - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- labour & services. dismissal from service: [subhash b. adi, j] dispensation of disciplinary enquiry - electricity (supply) act (54 of 1948) section 79 and karnataka electricity board employees (conduct, discipline, control & appeal) regulations, 1987, regulation 14 petitioner alleged to have been involved in theft - criminal complaint also lodged in this regard - however, based on same evidence criminal court held that charge of theft is not proved and also recovery is not proved by prosecution - disciplinary authority relying upon admission of criminal charge by petitioner before investigation officer and in charge sheet, passing order of dismissal held, not proper, particularly, when enquiry was dispensed with and petitioner had no opportunity before disciplinary authority. further,.....orderg.c. bharuka, j.1. the only son of the erstwhile late jayachamarajendra wodeyar, maharaja of mysore, is the petitioner before us. he has filed these two writ petitions inter alia, questioning the validity of the government order no. gad 2 psr 76, dated26-2-1976, passed by the state government by which it has taken over the possession and management of the mysore palace along with adjoining lands and moveables therein (hereinafter called the 'properties') in public interest and the continuance thereof on the ground of violation of articles 14, 21, 31-a(b) and 300-a of the constitution of india and for consequential relief of directing the state government and its servants to restore the possession and management of the said properties to the heirs of late maharaja.it is a historical.....

Judgment:
ORDER

G.C. Bharuka, J.

1. The only son of the erstwhile late Jayachamarajendra Wodeyar, Maharaja of Mysore, is the petitioner before us. He has filed these two writ petitions inter alia, questioning the validity of the Government Order No. GAD 2 PSR 76, dated26-2-1976, passed by the State Government by which it has taken over the possession and management of the Mysore Palace along with adjoining lands and moveables therein (hereinafter called the 'properties') in public interest and the continuance thereof on the ground of violation of Articles 14, 21, 31-A(b) and 300-A of the Constitution of India and for consequential relief of directing the State Government and its servants to restore the possession and management of the said properties to the heirs of late Maharaja.

It is a historical fact that the State of Mysore was being ruled by the Wodeyar family. But with execution of the Instrument of Accession by the Maharaja of Mysore on 9-8-1947 and its acceptance by the Governor General of India on 16-8-1947, read with supplementary Instrument dated 1-6-1949, the said Indian State acceded to the Dominion of India on 1-6-1949.

2. Subsequently, an agreement dated 23-1-1950 was entered into between the Government of India and Maharaja of Mysore in respect of properties and privy purse. Clauses (1) and (2) of the Article II of the said agreement which is material for the present purpose, is to the following effect:

Article II

'(1) The Maharaja shall be entitled to the full ownership, use and enjoyment of all private properties (as distinct from State properties) belonging to him on the date of this agreement.

(2) The Maharaja will furnish to the Government of India before the Twenty-third day of January, 1950, an inventory of all the immovable properties, securities and cash balances held by him as such private property'.

3. As stipulated in the aforesaid clauses, the Maharaja submitted an inventory of his private movable and immovable properties as on 26-1-1950. The Palace at Mysore and the adjoining lands are at Sl. No. 22 of the inventory. The note appended to the said serial number pertaining to the Palace at Mysore is of material bearing on the present controversy. The said note reads thus:

'Note.--(1) This item of the property will be inalienable and will be preserved for use by the Ruler and his successors. The State Government will bear the expenditure onthe maintenance of the building, grounds and gardens inclusive of water supply and electricity.

(2) The temples situated within the compound of the Palace will continue to be managed as at present and will receive grants from the State Government at rates not below those now sanctioned.

(3) For the three Palaces at Mysore, Bangalore and Yern Hill, Ootacamund, electricity and water supply charges will be free and the expenditure to be borne by the State Government on (a) general maintenance and (b) the gardens will be subject to a maximum of Rs. 75,000/- under each of the two items'.

4. On receiving the said Inventory, Sri B.P. Menon, the then Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of States, under his letter dated 8-1-1951 addressed to the Maharaja communicated the acceptance of the inventory as of private properties of the Maharaja. The material part of the letter was as under:

'Government of India, with the concurrence of the Government of Mysore, have accepted as your private property all the items specified in the enclosed inventory'.

5. From the aforesaid stipulations in the agreement between the Maharaja and the Government of India, it is quite clear that the properties in question had been conclusively accepted as private properties of the Maharaja and his successors including the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that as per the said agreement, the State Government was required to bear the expenditure on the maintenance of the buildings, grounds, and gardens, inclusive of water supply and electricity supply charges.

6. The makers of the Constitution of India gave constitutional recognition to the said agreement by incorporating Article 291 therein, which read thus:

'291. Privy purse sums of Rulers.--Where under any covenant or agreement entered into by the Ruler of any Indian State before the commencement of this Constitution, the payment of any sums, free of tax, has been guaranteed or assured by the government of the Dominion of India to any Ruler of such State as privy purse.-

(a) such sums shall be charged on, and paid out of, the Consolidated Fund of India; and

(b) the sums so paid to any Ruler shall be exempt from all taxes on income'.

7. Similarly, under Article 362 special provisions were made for preservation of rights and privileges of Rulers of Indian States, which read thus:

'362. Rights and privileges of Rulers of Indian States.--In the exercise of the power of Parliament or of the Legislature of a State to make laws or in the exercise of the executive power of the Union or of a State, due regard shall be had to the guarantee or assurance given under any such covenant or agreement as is referred to in Article 291 with respect to the personal rights, privileges and dignities of the Ruler of an Indian State'.

8. Subsequently, in 1971 the Parliament felt that the concept of Rulership, with privy purses and special privileges unrelated to any current functions and social purposes, was incompatible with an egalitarian social order. Accordingly, it passed 'the Constitution (Twenty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1971' which was brought into force from 28-12-1971. By this amendment, Articles 291 and 362 were omitted and new Article 363-A was inserted so as to terminate expressly the recognitions already granted to the Rulers of erstwhile princely States and their successors. The newly inserted article reads as under:

'363-A. Recognition granted to Rulers of Indian States to cease and privy purses to be abolished.--Notwithstanding anything, in this Constitution or in any law for the time being in force.-

(a) the Prince, Chief or other person who, at any time before the commencement of the Constitution (Twenty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1971, was recognised by the President as the Ruler of an Indian State or any person who, at any time before such commencement, was recognised by the President as the successor of such Ruler shall, on and from such commencement, cease to be recognised as such Ruler or the successor of such Ruler;

(b) on and from the commencement of the Constitution (Twenty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1971, privy purse is abolished and all rights, liabilities and obligations in respect of privy purse are extinguished and accordingly the Ruler or, as the case may be, the successor of such Ruler, referred to in clause (a) or any other person shall not be paid any sum as privy purse'.

9. It appears that consequent to the said constitutional amendment many questions were raised before the Government of India regarding the impact of the amendment on the private properties of the former Rulers. Keeping in view those questions, the Government of India in its Ministry of Home Affairs, under its letter dated 20-10-1972, addressed to the Chief Secretaries of all the States, clarified the legal position in the said regard, For the present purposes Paragraphs 2 and 7 of the said letter are only relevant, which read as under:

'2. Under the Covenants/Merger Agreement, the Rulers were guaranteed full enjoyment, use and ownership of the properties which they claimed as private properties (as distinct from State Properties). After the Government of India recognised these properties as their private properties, the Government of India is of the view that the Constitution (Twenty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1971, does not affect the properties which were recognised as private properties of the Rulers in accordance with the settlement with them. That being so, the properties which had vested in the Rulers in accordance with these settlements will continue to remain with them.

3 to 6. xxx xxx xxx. 7. The Rulers were also given certain privileges i.e., shooting and fishing rights, free supply of water and electricity, etc., Instructions have already been issued for the withdrawal of privileges that had been given by executive instructions vide this Ministry's letter No. T.21/3/72-Pol. III, dated the 29th April, 1972'.

10. Keeping in view the said historical and constitutional developments taking place from the day of accession of State of Mysore with the Dominion of India and abolition of privy purses and privileges conceded to the Ex-Rulers and their successors, it emerged as a hard fact that though the properties claimed by the Maharaja of Mysore as his private properties retained its character as such, and devolved on his legal heirs by rule ofsuccession as per the personal law governing the family but they were deprived of claiming the expenditure on the maintenance of the properties and the privilege of free water supply and electricity. This legal position is accepted by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the respondent State Government.

11. It is the case of the petitioner that because of abolition of privy purse and the sudden demise of Maharaja on 23-9-1974, the Royal family started feeling great financial stress because of levy of State duty and outstanding arrears of Income-tax and Wealth tax. According to him, consequent to the abolition of privy purses, a significant number of workers in the Palace had to be retrenched since it was not possible to maintain them with meagre resources. Apart from the said aspects the family started feeling difficulty in meeting even its day-to-day expenses befitting the traditions of the family. They also found it difficult to manage and maintain the properties.

12. In order to tide over the aforesaid situation coupled with the wishes of the late Maharaja to preserve the major portion of the Royal properties for public use, the petitioner with some of the other heirs, approached the State Government through several letters dated 18-8-1975, 8-9-1975, 7-2-1976, and 10-2-1976 to sort out a solution. The letter dated 18-8-1975 (Annexure-K) was addressed to the Chief Secretary to the State Government inter alia, with the following request:

'6. It has not been possible to register the Trust in respect of the Mysore Palace excluding the area occupied by us and pending final decision in respect of the matters pertaining to the Bangalore Palace, we feel it necessary that effective steps are taken for the maintenance and proper preservation of both the Palaces, the priceless properties and jewellery which had been put into the Trust. After careful consideration of all the factors, involved, we are convinced that it would be in the interest of everybody, the Government take over the possession of the Palace at Mysore excluding the property occupied by us and 450 acres of lands belonging to the Palace at Bangalore, Except the main Palace building and 10 acres of land surrounding the main Palace, and all the movable properties which are proposed to be put into the Trust, so that they are properly maintained and preserved for public purposes. Pending finalisa-tion of the quantum of compensation interim compensation of not less than 50 lakhs may kindly be arranged to be paid to us immediately to enable us to meet the various demands, and the balance of compensation may be arranged to be paid in the form of Bonds.

7. We agree that the nature and character of the balance Palace lands, except the main Palace the amount to be paid therefore and other incidental and ancillary matters may be settled later in accordance with law'.

13. A request similar to the above was again made under their letter dated 7-2-1976, jointly by Rajamata and the petitioner to take over the management of the properties subject to payment of compensation as suggested in the letter. But since the Government did not respond to the said request, letter dated 10-2-1976 was addressed by or on behalf of the seven heirs of the Maharaja to take over the maintenance and management of the property in question. The contents of the letter are as under:

'In modification of our letters dated 18-8-1875, 8-9-1975 and 7-2-1976 we hereby agree and request that pending finalisation of the matter (i) the Palace in Bangalore along with the entire vacant land around it; and (ii) the Palace in Mysore, except the portion occupied by us, along with the entire vacant land etc., around it; and (iii) the movables in both the Palaces may be taken possession of by the State Government forthwith for maintenance and management.

14. On receiving the last letter dated 10-2-1976, referred to above, from the heirs of the Maharaja, the State Government immediately responded by passing the impugned Government Order dated 26-2-1976, the material part whereof reads as under:

'