1965 (2) TMI 98 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court modifies High Court scheme, removes Executive Officer provision, allows for potential trustees

SRI SUBRAMANYA DESIGA GNANASAMBADA PANDARASANNADHI Versus STATE OF MADRAS

The Supreme Court modified the High Court's scheme by deleting the provision for the appointment of an Executive Officer, citing lack of evidence of ... - Issues Involved:1. Modification of the Scheme for the Administration of Sri Vaidyanathaswami Temple.2. Appointment of an Executive Officer.3. Appointment of Additional Trustees.4. Compliance with the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Modification of the Scheme for the Administration of Sri Vaidyanathaswami Temple:The Supreme Court reviewed the modification of the scheme framed by the High Court of Madras in 1919 for the administration of Sri Vaidyanathaswami Temple. The original scheme provided that the administration of the temple should be managed by the Kattalai Thambiran appointed by the Pandarasannadhi, with assistance from a treasurer, a shroff, and an auctioneer. The Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras, sought to modify this scheme under Section 62(3a) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, alleging various mismanagement issues and defects in the existing scheme.The Subordinate Judge dismissed the petition for modification, finding no substantiated allegations against the Trustee. The High Court, however, modified the scheme, introducing the provision for the appointment of an Executive Officer, which led to the current appeal.2. Appointment of an Executive Officer:The High Court's modification included appointing an Executive Officer to manage the temple's day-to-day administration. The appellant contended that this change was unwarranted as the Commissioner failed to establish any charges of mismanagement against the Trustee. The Supreme Court agreed, noting that the Executive Officer would practically displace the Trustee, which was unjustified given the lack of evidence of mismanagement. The Court emphasized that such a drastic provision was unnecessary unless there were compelling circumstances, which were absent in this case.3. Appointment of Additional Trustees:Clause 4 of the modified scheme allowed the Court to add two additional trustees if future mismanagement by the Pandarasannadhi was evident. The Supreme Court found no prejudice against the appellant in this provision, as it only conferred a power without mandating immediate or future appointments. The Court allowed this clause to stand, noting that Section 39 of the Act, as amended in 1954, already conferred similar powers on the Commissioner.4. Compliance with the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951:The Supreme Court analyzed the scheme within the framework of the Act, which aimed to ensure proper administration and governance of Hindu religious and charitable institutions. The Act provided for various authorities, including the Commissioner, with powers to oversee the administration of temples. The Court highlighted that while the Commissioner's views should be considered, the Court retained the duty to scrutinize the necessity and propriety of any scheme modifications.The Supreme Court noted that the Act allowed for the appointment of an Executive Officer only when a case was made out based on the facts of each case. In this instance, the Court found no justification for such an appointment, given the concurrent findings of no mismanagement.Final Judgment:The Supreme Court modified the High Court's scheme by deleting the provision for the appointment of an Executive Officer and making consequential amendments to other clauses. The retained clauses included those related to the temple's governance under the Act, the vesting of properties in the deity, and the administration by the Pandarasannadhi. The Court allowed the clause regarding the potential appointment of additional trustees to remain. The judgment acknowledged the new powers conferred on the Commissioner by the subsequent 1959 Act but based its decision on the circumstances of 1951 when the suit was filed.Conclusion:The Supreme Court's judgment modified the High Court's decree, removing the provision for an Executive Officer and amending related clauses, while retaining other aspects of the scheme. The parties were directed to bear their respective costs.