1954 (8) TMI 43 - HC - Indian Laws

Court annuls temple administration scheme violating trustees' property rights under Article 19(1)(f). Fresh scheme needed.

K. Sankaran Nair And Ors. Versus Nallacheri Govindan Nambiar And Others

The Court annulled the temple administration scheme due to its infringement of the hereditary trustees' fundamental property rights under Article 19(1)(f) ... - Issues:Challenge to the scheme framed for the administration of a temple and its properties on the grounds of violation of fundamental rights to property under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution.Detailed Analysis:1. The petitioners challenged a scheme framed by the H. R. E. Board for the administration of a temple, alleging that it infringed their fundamental rights to property under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. The scheme, in operation since 1934 with modifications in 1945, was further altered by the District Court in 1949. The petition sought a writ to prohibit the enforcement of the scheme by the Commissioner of the H. R. E. and two other respondents, claiming that the provisions of the scheme were oppressive towards the hereditary trustees.2. The Court examined the scheme's provisions and found merit in the petitioners' complaint. The scheme marginalized the hereditary trustees by appointing a paid manager without their input and granting extensive powers to the manager, diminishing the trustees' control. The President and Vice-President of the trustees had nominal powers, while the manager wielded significant authority, including control over temple finances, staff, and representation in legal matters. The scheme also mandated Board approval for temple expenditures and granted the Board broad powers over internal management.3. Citing a previous case, the Court affirmed that hereditary trusteeship constitutes property under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. The Court noted that encroachments on the rights of hereditary trustees could warrant legal relief. Drawing parallels between the impugned scheme and a previously invalidated scheme, the Court concluded that the entire scheme needed restructuring, as its provisions were interconnected and indivisible.4. The Commissioner argued that the scheme allowed for modifications upon application, providing an alternative remedy for the petitioners. While acknowledging the existence of an alternative remedy, the Court retained discretion to grant a writ irrespective of alternative options. Relying on precedent, the Court emphasized that the availability of an alternative remedy did not preclude the issuance of a writ.5. Given the irredeemable nature of the scheme, the Court ordered its complete annulment. A writ was issued to that effect, with costs awarded to the petitioners. The Court emphasized that the entire scheme needed to be set aside due to its inherent flaws, necessitating a fresh approach to its formulation.This detailed analysis outlines the Court's considerations, findings, and ultimate decision regarding the challenge to the temple administration scheme based on violations of fundamental property rights under the Constitution.