Case: T. C. Appanda Mudaliar (Dead) By L.Rs Vs. State of Madras

2. The appellant challenged the notification dated May 21, 1964 bearing No. 1462 of the Revenue Department. The contention of the appellant before the High Court was based on Article 14 that there were no guidelines to apply the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter called the Act) to the Jain institutions. The High Court did not accept the contention of the appellants.3. for the appellant with fairness realised that there was no force in the contention based on Article 14. He also pointed out that the reason why he did press it was that the notification was made eleven years ago and there was an order of stay of operation of the impeached order. Counsel submitted that the stay order for over eleven years should not be continued for a further period if the matter were to be adjourned again on the ground of Article 14 being involved in the appeal. Counsel, therefore, did not rely on Article 14.

Reasoning: 9. It has to be seen as to why this notification was made in this particulars case. The Government exercised the power under Section 2(1) of the Act for the reasons that the accounts were not account were not maintained properly, that surplus funds of the temple were not invested in banks and that temple funds were being utilised for the personal interests of the trustees. These are serious charges relating to the accounts of the temple. It can hardly be said that the notification proposing to apply the Act to an institution in these circumstances requires assistance of a Jain Commissioner or a Jain to administer the institution.10. Counsel for the respondent rightly submitted that the reason why the Act was not to apply to Jains was to confer a benefit on Jains because of the report relating to Jain institutions. There were no instance of mismanagement or maladministration of Jain institution. This benefit given to Jain institutions can be departed from when the Act is applied to a Jain institution as has happened in the present case. We have already pointed out that the Act can apply to one institution because there is no compelling reason to read the Act in plurality in relation to Jain institution. Mismanagement or mishandling of accounts is not a ubiquitous feature. It may be found only in a single instance.