Case ID: 2215

Judgment:
ivil Appeal No. 2586 of 966. Appeals from the judgment dated November 17	 1966 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 1589 of 1965. P. Ram Reddy and A.V.V. Nab '	 for the appellants. 1. V. Rangacharya	 B. Parthasarathy and P.C. Bhartari. for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Vaidialingam	 J. This appeal	 by certificate	 is directed against the order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court	 allowing a writ petition	 filed by the respondent	 under article 226 of the Constitution. The facts leading up to the filing of the Writ Petition	 by the respondent	 may be briefly indicated. In respect of Sri Swami Hathiramji Math. Tirumalai	 Tirupati	 disputes arose regarding 89 3 the succession to the office of the Mahant of the Math	 after the death	 in 1947	 of the then Mahant	 Prayag Dossji. An agreement seems to have been arrived at	 on October 29	 1947	 laying 	town the procedure for choosing a successor to the office of 'the Mahant	 when a vacancy arises. The Akada Panchayat appears to have been constituted the supreme authority	 in such matters. That agreement also provided	 as to who	 among the respondent	 and one Chetham Doss	 was to succeed to the office of the Mahant	 on the death of one Narayan Doss. Narayan Doss died on December 9	 1958	 and Chetham Doss succeeded as Mahant. The respondent filed O. section 84 of 1958	 in the Subordinate Judge 's Court	 Chittoor	 for a declaration that he is entitled to succeed to the office of Mahant. The suit was resisted	 by Chetam Dass	 on the basis that under the agreement of October 29	 1947	 he was legitimately entitled to succeed as Mahant. Sometime later	 the respondent and Chetam Dass	 entered into a compromise	 by virtue of an agreement	 dated July 15	 1961. Both of theta agreed that Chetam Das was entitled to continue as Mahant	 and that	 after his death	 the respondent was to succeed as Mahant. III view of this agreement	 the respondent got dismissed	 as settled	 O.S. 84 of 1958. Chetam Dass died	 on March 18	 1962	 and the respondent claims to have succeeded as Mahant	 in his own right. But	 according to the appellant	 the Commissioner H.R. & C.E.	 Andhra Pradesh	 received telegram stating that there was a dispute about the person who was to succeed as Mahant. The	 Assistant Commissioner	 H.R. & C.E.	 took action	 under section 53 of the Madras Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act	 1951 (Act XIX of 1951). (hereinafter called the Act)	 which is applicable to the State of Andhra Pradesh	 and assumed charge	 on March 24. 1962	 of the Math and its properties. The respondent filed. on March 26	 1962	 O.S. 24 of 1962	 for a declaration that he is the rightful successor to the office of the Mahant of the Institution	 in question. The Commissioner	 H.R. & C.E.	 was made a party to the suit. The respondent also filed a revision	 before the Government	 on April 18	 1962	 challenging the assuming charge of the Math	 under section 53 of the Act	 by the Assistant Commissioner. The Government stayed further proceedings; and	 in consequence	 O.S. 24 of 1962	 was withdrawn	 by the respondent	 on April 24	 1962. The Government also passed an order	 on June 5	 1962	 stating that it was necessary to take action	 for making suitable arrangements for the proper administration of the Math and its endowments	 till the civil court decided as to who should succeed to the office of the Mahant. In this connection	 the State Government referred to an objection	 received	 from one Devendra Dass	 stating that he is the proper person entitled to succeed to the office of the Mahant. Ultimately	 by the said order	 the Government appointed the respondent	 as an 894 interim Mahant	 subject to the various conditions	 laid down therein. Devendra Dass filed writ petition No. 602 of 1962	 on June 21	 1962	 in the High Court	 challenging this order of the State Government dated June 5	 1962. That writ petition was	 dismissed on August 27	 1962. In the meanwhile	 Devendra Dass	 who was a minor	 had instituted two suits	 O.S. Nos. 50 of 1962 and 57 of 1962	 to declare him as the person entitled to succeed to the office of the Mahant	 on the death of Chetam Dass. In the first suit he was represented	 by one Mukundd Dos!		 as next friend	 and in the second suit he was represented by one Bhagwant Doss	 as the next friend. When Devendra Doss attained majority	 later on	 he preferred to continue O.S. 50 of 1962. and therefore O.S. 57 of 1962 was dismissed	 as unnecessary. On August 22	 1964	 the Government passed an order	 direct ing the respondent to show cause why its previous order	 dated June 5	 1962	 appointing the respondent	 as interim Mahant	 should not be cancelled. This appears to have been issued	 by the State Government	 in view of the fact that the respondent was taking a particular attitude regarding the pada kanikkas received by him. In the said order	 the Government also proceeded	 on the basis that it has no jurisdiction to appoint an interim Mahant when action is taken	 under section 53 of the Act. On receipt of this notice	 the respondent filed writ petition No. 1534 of 1964	 challenging the said order. His claim appears to have been that he had succeeded to the office of Mahant. in his own right	 after the death of Chetam Dass	 and that no action can be taken	 under section 53 of the Act	 and therefore	 the question of the Government	 either appointing him as interim Mahant. or taking any action to cancel such an order	 does not arise. It is seen that further proceedings	 in pursuance of the notice	 issued by the Government	 were stayed	 by the High Court	 pending the disposal of the writ petition. The State Government passed an order	 on September 9	 1965	 framing certain charges	 as against the respondent	 and directing him to furnish his explanation. regarding the same	 and	 at the same time	 placed him under suspension. The respondent filed	 writ petition No. 1589 of 1965. challenging this order of the Government	 placing him under suspension. In view of this writ petition	 the earlier writ petition. No. 1534 of 1.964	 was dismissed	 as infructuous	 on April 14. In the meanwhile	 Bhagwant Doss	 who had originally instituted O.S. No. 57 of 1962	 as the next friend of Devendra Dass	 and which suit was got dismissed by the minor	 after attaining majority	 instituted another suit	 O.S. No. 69 of 1965 on September 29. 1965	 claiming in his own right to be the person entitled to succeed to the office of Mahant. This suit appears to be still pend 89 5 ing. But O.S. 50 of 1962	 which was decided to be continued	 by Devendra Doss	 was contested by the respondent and	 ultimately	 dismissed	 on April 28	 1966. It is stated that an appeal.	 A.S. No. 476 of 1966	 has been filed	 on November 17	 1966. against this decree and it is still pending. The main contention	 taken by the respondent	 in writ peti tion No. 1589 of 1965	 was that he had already in law succeeded as Mahant	 on March 18	 1962	 when the presiding Mahant	 Chetam Doss	 died. Therefore	 according to him	 there was no vacancy which can be aid to have occurred	 in the office of the trustee of the Math	 so as to give jurisdiction to the Assistant Commissioner	 or the Commissioner	 H.R. & C.E.	 to take action	 under section 53 of the Act. The respondent also relied upon the circumstance that the suit filed by Devendra Doss	 O.S. 50 of 1962	 had been dismissed and the Court had accepted his title to hold the office of the Mahant	 on the basis of the Panchayat Agreement	 dated October 29	 1947	 as well as the agreement	 dated July 15	 1961	 entered into between him and the then Mahant	 Chetam Dass. The respondent also relied upon the circumstance that his assumption of office	 as Mahant	 on the death of Chetam Dass	 has been approved	 on March 18	 1962	 by the supreme authority	 namely	 the Akada Panchayat. The appellant resisted the claim of the respondent. 	 on the 		round that when Chetam Doss died	 and the respondent attempted to take charge as Mahant	 a claim was made	 by one Devendra Doss	 that he was the person	 lawfully entitled to succeed to the office of the Mahant. On the death of Chetam Doss	 on March 18	 1962	 a vacancy occurred	 in the office of the trustee of the nath	 and there is also a dispute	 between the respondent and Devendra Doss	 regarding the right of succession to such office. In view of the fact that the necessary conditions	 for invoking section 53 exist	 the assumption of management of the Math was taken over	 by the Assistant Commissioner	 H.R. & C.E.	 for the proper management of the institution. It was also pointed out that the suit instituted	 by Bhagwant Doss	 O.S. No. 69 of 1965	 claiming in himself the right to succeed	 as a trustee	 was still pending and that also shows there is a dispute	 regarding succession to the office of the trustee. The appellant has also urged	 that in any event	 inasmuch as the respondent has been appointed	 to manage the institution	 by the department	 under section 53 of the Act	 and. as he was continuing in such management by virtue of such appointment	 the State had ample jurisdiction to pass orders either of suspending	 or even dismissing the respondent. The learned Judges of the High Court have held that the res pondent has succeeded as Mahant	 on March 18	 1962	 on the death of Chetam Dass	 by virtue of the Panchayat Agreement	 of October 29. 1947	 and the compromise agreement	 dated July 15	 896 1961. Therefore	 it Cannot be said that there was any vacancy in the office of the trustee of the Math	 so as to enable the appellant to take action	 under section 53 of the Act. The High Court has	 in this connection	 referred to the findings recorded	 by the Subordinate Judge 's Court	 in favour of the respondent	 in O.S. 50 of 1962. The mere circumstance that after a person has succeeded to the office of the trustee	 other people lay claims to that office	 and institute litigation for that purpose	 will not	 according to the High Court	 give jurisdiction to the appellants to take action	 under section 53 of the Act. The High Court is further of the view that the appellant 's action	 in placing the respondent under suspension	 is contrary to the directions given by the High Court	 on April 9	 1965	 pending the disposal of the writ petition. The High Court is further of the view that the stand	 taken by the appellants	 is quite contrary to the earlier stand	 taken in their order	 dated June 5	 1962	 wherein they had categorically stated that the civil Court 's decision will be conclusive and final	 regardin the succession to the office of the Mahant. This reason	 is given by the High Court	 as it was of the view that the appellant should give due respect to the decision	 in O.S. 50 of 1962. On these grounds the High Court quashed the order passed	 by the State Government	 dated September 9	 1966	 placing the peti tioner	 under suspension. Mr. Rain Reddy	 learned counsel appearing for the appellants. has raised the same contentions that were taken	 before the High Court. In addition	 counsel has also pointed out that the decision	 in O.S. 50 of 1962	 has not become final	 inasmuch as Devendra Doss	 who lost that litigation	 has filed A.S. No. 476 of 1966	 which is still pending. Counsel further points out that	 in view of the dispute raised	 by Devendra Doss	 by making a claim for the trusteeship or the Math	 before the Government the writ petition	 No. 602 of 1962	 filed by the said party	 Lis well as the various suits	 referred to above	 will clearly show that there is a dispute regarding the succession to the office of the trustee of the Math. when a vacancy occurred	 on the death of Chetam Dass	 on March 18	 1962. Therefore	 action taken by the appellant	 in the interests of the institution	 was perfectly valid. Counsel also urged that inasmuch as the respondent is functioning as Manager of the institution	 by virtue of his appointment	 on June 5	 1962	 by the Government	 subject to the conditions mentioned therein	 the Government was competent to take disciplinary action	 as against the respondent	 for breach of those conditions. Mr. 1. V. Rangacharya	 learned counsel for the respondent	 of Lilly supports the reasons	 given by the learned Judges of the High Court	 for accepting the claim made by his client	 in the writ petition. 897 The short question	 that arises	 for .consideration	 is as to whether the Assistant Commissioner	 H.R. & C.E.	 had jurisdiction to assume management of the Math	 in question	 under section 53 of the Act. That will depend on the further question as to whether the State Government had jurisdiction to place the respondent	 under suspension	 as they have purported to do	 'by their order. dated September 9. The answer to the above question is to be decided	 by reference to section 53 of the Act. Section 53 of the Act. occurs in 'Chapter IV	 relating to Maths. Sub section (1) of that Section enables the commissioner or any two or more ' persons having interest and having obtained the consent	 in writing	 of the Commissioner	 to institute a suit to obtain a decree for removing the trustee of 	a math or a specific endowment attached to a math	 for any one or more of the grounds mentioned in cls. (a) to (f) therein. Section 53	 which is the material section	 and which relates to filling of vacancies	 is as follows: "53. (1) When a vacancy occurs in the office of the trustee of a math or specific endowment attached to a math and there is a dispute respecting the right of succession to such office or	 when such vacancy cannot be filled up immediately or when the trustee is a minor and has no guardian fit and willing to act as such or there is a dispute respecting the person who is entitled to act as guardian	 or when the trustee is by reason of unsoundness of mind or other mental or physical defect or infirmity unable to discharge the functions of the trustee	 the Assistant Commissioner may take such steps and pass such order as he thinks proper for the temporary custody and protection of the endowments of the ' math or of the specific endowment	 as the case may be	 and shall report the matter forthwith to the Commissioner. (2) Upon the receipt of such report	 if the Commissioner	 after making such inquiry as he deems necessary. is satisfied that an arrangement for the administration of the math and its endowments or of the specific ' endowment	 as 'the case may be	 is necessary	 he shall make such arrangement as he thinks fit until the disability of the trustee ceases or another trustee succeeds to the office	 as the case may be. (3) In making any such arrangement	 the Commissioner shall have due regard to the claims of the ' disciples of the math	 if any. 898 (4) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect anything contained in the Madras Court of Wards Act	 1902. " Section 53(1) contemplates four contingencies	 under which the Assistant Commissioner may take steps for the temporary 	custody and protection of the math. We are concerned	 in this case	 only with the first contingency	 referred to in that subsection. Before that provision can be invoked	 two conditions are necessary	 viz.	 (a) a vacancy must have occurred	 in the office of the trustee of a math; and (b) there must be a dispute	 respecting the right of succession	 to such office. In this case	 it is possible to say	 in view of the claim made by Devendra Das. and the litigations referred to	 above	 that there was a dispute Tespecting the right of succession to the office of the Mahant. But in order to give jurisdiction to the appellant to take action	 tinder the first contingency	 referred to in sub section (1) of section 53	 the two conditions adverted to above	 will have to exist. In this case	 it is the claim of the appellant that there was a vacancy	 in the office of the trustee of the Math	 on March 18	 1962	 when Chetan Das died. On the other hand	 according to the resPondent	 there was no vacancy in the office of the Mahant	 it that time	 because	 on the death of Chetan Das	 the respondent succeeded to the office of the Mahant. Therefore	 the point to be considered is	 as to whether a vacancy has occurred	 in the office of the trustee of the Math	 on March 18	 1962. That there must be an actual vacancy	 unfilled	 is clear	 from the wording of section 53(1)	 when it deals with two different contingencies. providing for the assumption of management. Under the first contingency	 a vacancy should have occurred in the office of a trustee of a Math	 and there is a dispute in respect of the succession to such office. That is	 the office has not been filled in. by anybody having a prima facie legal	 right to assume management. Similarly	 the second contingency	 contemplated unders. 53(1)	 when assumption of management can be made by the Department	 is when a vacancy occurs in the office of a trustee of a Math and when such vacancy cannot be filled up immediately. This clearly shows that there must be a vacancy	 as I fact	 in the sense that nobody with any legal right has assumed Office of the trustee of a Math. In this case	 as we have pointed out earlier	 the High Court has accepted the claim of the respondent that by virtue of the Panchayat agreement dated October 29	 1947	 and the compromise agreement	 dated July 1.5	 1961	 the respondent has succeeded to the office of the trustee of the Math	 on March 18	 1962	 on the death of Chetan Das. The supreme authority. according to the High Court	 the Akada Panchayat	 has also 899 approved of the said appointment	 by resolution of the same date. We do not propose to consider the findings recorded in O.S. 50 of 1962	 which are no doubt in favour of the respondent	 because that decision is the subject of an appeal	 in A.S. No. 476 of 1966. Nor do we propose to consider the claim of Bhagwant Doss in O.S. 69 of 1965	 which is still pending adjudication	 at the hands of the Court. But even without reference to those litigations	 the view of the High Court that there is no vacancy in the office of the trustee of the Math which alone will give jurisdiction to the appellant to take action under section 53(1)	 can be accepted its correct	 for the other reasons	 mentioned by us	 earlier. Mr. Ram Reddy	 learned counsel for the appellants	 further points out that	 in this case	 the respondent is in management or the Math	 by virtue of the appointment made	 by the State Government	 on June 5	 1962	 and therefore the State Government is entitled to take disciplinary action against him for breach of conditions	 under which he was holding that office. Counsel also united our attention to the averments made by the respondent himself	 in Writ Petition No. 602 of 1962	 that the State Government has appointed him as interim Mahant. The stand taken by the respondent	 in writ petition No. 602 of 1962	 cannot assist the appellant	 because he was interested then in fighting the claim made by Devendra Dass	 in the said writ petition. In resisting such claim	 he has	 no doubt	 made reference to the fact that his right to function	 as Mahant	 cannot be disturbed	 as the State Government has appointed him a 	; interim mahant. Therefore	 the stand taken by the respondent	 in the said writ petition	 must be understood in the said context. No doubt	 normally	 if it is established that the respondent 's only right to function as Manager of this institution	 is exclusively on the basis of the Government order	 dated June 5	 1962	 there will be considerable force in the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the State Government has got jurisdiction to take disciplinary action	 against the respondent. But 'the facts in this case show that the position is entirely different. If the respondent	 as held by the High Court with which view we are in agreement has succeeded to the office of the trustee of the Math	 on the death of Chetam Dass	 on March 18	 1962	 in hi	 ; own right	 the mere circumstance that the Government also passe	; an order appointing him as interim Mahant	 or Manager	 later	 will not take away the right of the respondent to function as trustee. on the basis of his original right. Once it is held that the respondent is not holding the office of the Mahant	 exclusively on the basis of the order of the Government	 dated June 5. 1962	 it follows that the appellant has no jurisdiction to pass an order	 placing the respondent under suspension	 as that virtually amounts to a removal of the trustee of a Math. The removal of 900 trustee of a Math can be done only in the manner	 and in the circumstances	 mentioned in section 52 of the Act. Therefore	 the view of the High Court that the order of the Government	 placing the respondent Linder suspension	 is not valid	 is correct. The result is	 that the appeal fails	 and is dismissed. In the Circumstances of the case	 there will be no order as to costs.

Summary:
After the death of the Mahant of Sri Swami Hathiramji Math	 Tirumalai	 Tirupati	 in 1947	 an agreement was arrived at on October 29	 1947 resolving certain disputes regarding the succession to the office of Mahant and laying down a procedure for choosing a successor when a vacancy arose. Furthermore	 the Akada Panchayat was constituted the supreme authority in such matters. One C.D. became the Mahant in 1958. The respondent challenged the succession by a declaratory suit but eventually there was a compromise and in an agreement dated .July 15	 1961	 it was agreed that C.D. was entitled to continue as Mahant	 and that after his death the respondent would succeed him. On the death of C.D. on March 18	 1962	 the respondent claimed to have succeeded as Mahant in his own right and the Akada Panchayat approved the succession by a resolution on the same date. However	 the Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Andhra pradesh	 having received a telegram disputing the respondent 's claim	 took action under section 53 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act XIX of 1959 and assumed charge of the Math and its property on March 24	 1964. The respondent thereafter filed a suit for a declaration that he was the rightful successor. He also filed a revision before the Government challenging the action taken under section 53 whereupon the Government stayed further proceedings and the respondent therefore withdrew his suit. On June 5	 1962 the Government issued an order stating that as there were disputes about who was the rightful successor	 until the Civil Court decided this question	 it was necessary to make suitable arrangements for the proper administration of the Math and its endowments; it therefore appointed the respondent as interim Mahant subject to various conditions laid down in the order. in view of the respondent 's attitude in the discharge of certain of his duties	 on August 22	 1964	 the Government passed an order directing him to show cause why the previous order of June 5	 1962	 should not he cancelled. The respondent filed a Writ Petition against this order claiming that he had succeeded to the office of Mahant in his own right and that no action could be taken by the Government under section 53 other appointing him as interim Mahant or cancelling such appointment 	 the High Court thereupon stayed further proceedings in pursuance of the notice pending the disposal of the writ petition. The State Government then passed a further order on September 9	 1965	 framing certain charge 	 against the respondent	 calling for his explanations to them '.Ind. at the same time	 placing him under suspension. The respondent filed a second writ petition challenging this new order whereupon the earlier writ petition was dismissed as infructious. The High Court allowed the second writ petition. 892 It was condendcd on behalf of the appellant that (i) on the death of C D. on March 18	1962	 a vacancy occurred in the of]fire of Mahant and there was a dispute between the respondent and two other persons each of whom claimed the right of succession; suits had been filed by each of those two persons to establish their claims and 	tithough these had been dismissed	 an appeal was pending in respect of one of them; view of this the necessary conditions existed for invoking the power under section 53 for the proper management of the Math; furthermore	 that inasmuch as the respondent had been appointed to manage the institution by the department under section 53 of the Act	 and	 as he	 was continuing in such management by virtue of that appointment	 the State had ample jurisdiction to pass orders either of suspending or even dismissing the respondent. HELD: Dismissing the appeal; The High Court had rightly held that 'there was no jurisdiction for the exercise of the power under section 53 of the Act. (i) Before section 53 can be invoked. two conditions are necessary viz.	 (a) a vacancy must have occurred in the office of the trustee of a Math; and (b) there must be a dispute respecting the right of succession to such office. In the present case although it. was possible to say that there was a dispute resperting the right of succession to the office of Mahant	 the further condition that there must be a vacancy could not be said to have existed and the High Court had rightly accepted the claim of the respondent that by virtue of the Panchayat agreement of October 29	 1947	 the compromise agreement of Julv 15	 1961	 and the approval given to his succeession by the Akada Panchayat. he had succeeded as Mahant March 18	 1962	 on the death of C.D. 1898 B D. H] (ii) If the respondent had succeeded as Mahant on the death of C.D.	 in his own right. the mere circumsta 'nce that the Government also passed an order appointing him as interim Mahant	 later would not take away the right of the respondent to function as Mahant. Once it is held that he was not holding the office exclusively on the basis of the order of the Government of June 5	 1962. it follows that the appellant had no jurisdiction to. pass an order	 placing the respondent under suspension	 as that virtually amounted 10. a removal of the trustee of a Math which could only be done in accordance with the provisions of section 52 of the Act. [899 G 900 A]