Case: State Of Andhra Pradesh Vs. S. M. K. Parasurama Gurukul

1. This is an appeal by the State of Andhra Pradesh against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh holding that the appointment of nine trustees to the Kalahastiswara Swami Temple in the town of Kalahasti in the Chittoor district of Andhra Pradesh was liable to be quashed on the short ground that the impugned order was not a speaking order. For this purpose the Bench relied upon its own judgment in Writ Petition No. 2536 of 1967 that the functionaries under the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act,1966, though administrative tribunals, are exercising quasi-judicial functions in appointing non-hereditary trustees. By the time this appeal came up for hearing the period of office of the trustees, whose appointment was challenged by the respondent, was over and the respondents, therefore, contended that the appeal should be dismissed as having become infructuous. On behalf of the State of Andhra Pradesh it was urged that the question is one of considerable importance to it and that appointment of trustees to a number of institutions is being held up because of the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. We, therefore, indicated that we would be prepared to hear the appeal but would make it conditional on the respondent getting his costs from the appellant irrespective of the result. The State of Andhra Pradesh has no objection.2. It appears that the respondent has also filed a suite claiming that the temple in question is either a private family temple not falling within the definition of the term temple in the Act or at least that he is a hereditary trustee thereof. That suit is still pending. The decision in this appeal, therefore, simply proceeds on the basis that the respondent was one of the persons who had applied to be appointed as a trustee of the temple in question.

Court's reasoning:
4. It is hardly necessary to say that in this case the respondent had no right to be appointed a trustee; nor had any of the other persons who were appointed trustees. There was no question of a proposition and an opposition. There is, therefore, no question of any list. Nor is here any question of contest between the authority proposing to do the act and the subject opposing it. Such a question will arise only if any right of the subject is affected. None of the other tests laid down above are satisfied in this case.5. An examination of the provisions of the statute, which is an Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to the administration and government of charitable and Hindu religious institutions and endowments does not show that in appointing trustees to temples the concerned authorities have to act judicially. Nor is the appointment of trustees under Section 15 left to the administrative authority without any guidelines laid down by the Legislature for being followed. Section 16 lays down the disqualifications for being appointed a trustee. Section 15 (4) lays down that in making the appointment of trustees due regard shall be had to the religious denomination or any section thereof to which the institution belongs or the endowment is made and the wishes of the founder. If the appointment satisfies the above tests and if the person appointed is not disqualified under any of the clauses of Section 16, the appointment will not be affected in any way. The administrative authority concerned does not have to weigh the relative merits of various candidates in making the appointment of trustees. Normally it would exercise its own discretion as to who is best fitted to discharge the duties and functions of a trustee. But that is not to say that it must set out the reasons as to why it has appointed somebody as trustee and not appointed somebody else as a trustee. The Legislature has left the matter to the discretion of the appointing authority subject to the guidelines that it has laid down in Sections 15 and 16.We do not consider that the fact that under Section 82 of the Act the Commissioner has got the power of revision in respect of orders passed by his subordinates and the Government in respect of orders passed by the Commissioner as well as his subordinates (there is no provision in the Act for a judicial review in respect of the orders passed by the Government) in anyway limits their powers under Section 15 (1) (a). We are of opinion that the learned Judges of the High Court were in error in so far as the implication of their observation is that in exercising their powers under Section 15 the administrative authorities concerned are exercising quasi-judicial functions and that it was necessary to have a speaking order. We find the Madras High Court in Commissioner., H. R. and C. E. v. B. R Venkatachalapathi, (l972) 85 Mad LW 349 after a very elaborate and instructive discussion has taken a similar view respect of the powers of appointment of non-hereditary trustees under Section 47 of the Madras Hindu Religion and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, which more or less corresponds to Section 15 of this Act.