Case: Kakinada Annadana Samajam Etc Vs. Commissioner Of Hindu Religious &amp; Charitableendowments, Hy

2. A number of petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution were filed before the High Court on behalf of the institutions of endowments some of which were public and some private in character. A few institutions were societies registered under the Societies Registration Act while others claimed to be religious endowments or public bodies like municipalities which were managing the institutions. We might, for the sake of convenience state the facts in Civil Appeal No. 1360 of 1970. In the affidavit of Nalam Ramalingaiah it is stated that he is the hereditary trustee of the Nalam Choultry and Vysya Seva Sadanam which are private trusts. They were founded by his ancestor in the year 1879 and 1920 respectively. He had been the managing trustee from 1943. The Choultry was endowed with immovable property comprising an area of 453 acres of land which by careful management was now fetching an income of Rs. 40.000/-. Besides feeding the poor and affording free lodging facilities to pilgrims, scholarships were being given to deserving students. The Sevasadan was endowed with huge properties which were fetching Rupees 18,000/- as income. The objects of this charity were (1) to impart education and training in handicraft to women; (2) to feed poor girls; (3) provide free shelter to women students, and (4) run womens Sanskrit School. At no time there had been any complaint about mismanagement of the aforesaid trust. A number of other Choultries were also mentioned which were being managed by the hereditary trustee or trustees. Some of them were providing food and shelter to students and travellers of all castes and creeds including Muslims and Christians. Among the objects of some of the Choultries was included the performing of pujas in temples. These Choultries were founded in the last century and ever since their inception the members of the family of the founder or founders had been managing them. At no time there had been any complaint of any kind against the management. On the contrary the hereditary trustees had improved the endowment properties and added several charitable activities to the existing objects3. The validity of the main provisions of the Act was challenged on the grounds that the office of the hereditary trusteeship was property within the meaning of Art. 19 (1) (f) and that these provisions were ultra vires and void as violative of that Articles as also of Arts. 14, 25, 26 and 31 of the Constitution. On behalf of the respondents the position taken up was that all the institutions in question were public and none of them was private in character that they were religious and charitable institutions and endowments within the meaning of the Act. It was denied that the office of hereditary trustee was property within the meaning of Art. 19 (1) (f) or that there was infringement of any of the fundamental rights mentioned in the various petitions. It was maintained that the hereditary trustees etc. had only a bare right to manage the affairs of the institution and the secular matters which could not be regarded as property within the meaning of the aforesaid Article4. The High Court formulated five questions for decision but it is unnecessary to mention or go into all of them as the matters in controversy before us relate to two of these questions. These are (1) whether on the facts and in the circumstances the office of hereditary trusteeship is or is not property within the meaning of Art. 19 (1) (f) and Art. 31 and (2) whether all or any of the material provisions of the Act are hit by Art. 14, 19 (1) (f), 25, or 31. The High Court was of the view that the office of hereditary trustee was property within the meaning of Art. 19 (l) (f). It was however, held that the impugned provisions only imposed reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right of the trustees, in the interest of general public and good administration of the public institution. It was further found that none of the impugned provision were violative of Arts. 14, 19 (1) (f) 25, 26 and 31 of the Constitution. According to the High Court the material provisions of the Act were only intended to regulate and ensure proper, efficient and better administration and management of the institution. All the writ petitions were dismissed.

Court's reasoning:
It was his duty and responsibility to appoint the staff and take disciplinary action whenever necessary and to regulate the expenditure and carry out generally the objects of the charitable institution or endowment. By the appointment of a Board of trustees the hereditary trustee can no longer manage and exercise control over the institution alone or in association with other hereditary trustees. He has to share the management and responsibility with other members of the Board who may be drawn from the section or faction which may be politically motivated and may be hostile to him. The appointment of the Board, it is pointed out, rests with the Government, the Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be and although hereditary trustee or trustees have to be included in the Board, the entire administrative power is vested in the Executive Officer. This officer is a permanent Government servant and the Board or the trustee cannot either remove him or take any disciplinary action against him which means that the Board or the trustee cannot exercise any effective control over him. The Executive Officer can in certain eventualities even refuse to implement orders of the Board. The hereditary trustee has thus been left only with what may be called the husk of the title and his right to hold property has been seriously interfered with13. We may add that even if it was held that the rights in question constituted property their regulation by the relevant provisions of the Act would undoubtedly be protected by Art. 19 (5). We have no hesitation in concurring with the decision of the High Court that restrictions which have been imposed by the provisions of the Act on the hereditary trustees are reasonable and are in the interest of the general public. The power to appoint non-hereditary trustees or Executive Officers where there is already a hereditary trustee or trustees notwithstanding there is no mismanagement is only for the purpose of ensuring better and efficient administration and management of the institution or endowment. Non-hereditary trustees have been associated with the hereditary trustee who has not been removed from his office. As a matter of fact complete safeguards have been provided for ensuring that he retains his office. He or one of the hereditary trustees has to be the Chairman of the Board. He has various powers under the provisions of the Act already noticed. All that can be said is that instead of managing the institution alone he has to administer it in collaboration with other trustees who are non-hereditary. In matters of religion such a puja, dittam, rituals etc. there can be no interference. It has been provided in categorical terms that the same must be continued to be performed according to Agansastras or usage or custom prevalent in the institution. It is only the secular aspect that has been touched and there can be no manner of doubt that the same has been done in interest of better and efficient administration. It must be remembered that the legislation relating to public and charitable institutions or endowments has taken place as a result of careful deliberation by high powered bodies14. In the report of the Hindu Religious Endowment Commission prescribed over by Dr. C. P. Ramaswami Iyer which was appointed in March 1960 it has been pointed out that legislation relating to endowments became necessary in the States as a result of the almost invariable mismanagement of the endowment properties of temples by the trustees, misappropriation of the funds of the endowment for purposes unconnected with the original aims and objects of such endowments, utilisation of funds of the endowment by the trustees or managers for their personal purposes etc. All this fuller supports the decision of the High Court that the restrictions which have been placed on the hereditary trustees as also on others in whom the management of the institution in question vests are reasonable and in the public interest Thus the appellants cannot succeed on the principal point which has been argued before us15. A faint attempt was made to sustain the attack under Arts. 14 and 26 (d) of the Constitution but finally hardly any arguments were addressed worth noticing, on these points It is unnecessary to deal with individual appeals some of which were filed by societies registered under the Societies Registration Act i.e. Civil Appeal No. 1249 of l970. C. A No. 1271 of 1970 by the Municipal Council. Visakhapatnam, related to the Turners Choultry which, according to the Municipal Council was its private property. So far as the validity of the impugned provisions is concerned the same must be sustained in these cases on the same reasoning as in the case relating to the hereditary trustee. The High Court has rightly left open the question whether the Turners Choultry is a private or a public charitable institution. This the Municipal Council is entitled to agitate before the Deputy Commissioner under S. 77 of the Act. Before the High Court some of the Writ Petitioners had claimed that their institutions were religious denominations within Article 26 and were therefore entitled to the protection guaranteed by that Article. The High Court has, quite rightly, observed that these matters should be agitated in a proper forum and they have been left open for determination if and when so desired. This indisputably was the correct course to follow :