1958 (3) TMI 105 - HC - Indian Laws

Court dismisses writ petition, upholds Charitable Endowments Act, Treasurer appointment, Govt's actions justified, no constitutional rights violation.

The court dismissed the writ petition with costs, affirming the applicability of the Charitable Endowments Act to the society, the validity of the ... - Issues Involved:1. Applicability of the Charitable Endowments Act to a registered society.2. Validity of the application for the appointment of a Treasurer.3. Allegations of mismanagement and the Government's response.4. Impact of the appointment of a Treasurer on the society's property rights.5. Alleged violation of constitutional rights under Articles 19(1)(g) and 31.Detailed Analysis:1. Applicability of the Charitable Endowments Act to a Registered Society:The petitioner contended that the Charitable Endowments Act cannot be applied to a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, arguing that the registration of the society is a final and conclusive act, and no other statute can be made applicable to it. The court examined the provisions of both the Societies Registration Act and the Charitable Endowments Act. It was noted that the Charitable Endowments Act was enacted to provide for the vesting and administration of property held in trust for charitable purposes, including education. The court concluded that the College Committee falls within the ambit of the definition of 'charitable purpose' under Section 2 of the Charitable Endowments Act. The court further held that there is no prohibition in the Charitable Endowments Act from applying its provisions to a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, as the Act does not contain any reserved nor make any exception with regard to registered societies.2. Validity of the Application for the Appointment of a Treasurer:The petitioner argued that there was no valid application as contemplated by Sections 4 and 5 of the Charitable Endowments Act. The court noted that this involves the determination of a question of fact. According to the respondent, six out of eleven members constituting the Governing Body passed a valid resolution requesting the Government to take action under Sections 4 and 5 of the Charitable Endowments Act. The petitioner, however, contended that the College Committee, at a meeting held the same evening, passed a resolution strongly opposing the intervention of the Government and removing the President from his office. The court held that it is for the Government to satisfy itself as to whether there was a valid application under the provisions of the Charitable Endowments Act, which would give them jurisdiction to appoint a Treasurer.3. Allegations of Mismanagement and the Government's Response:The court noted that the Vice-Chancellor of Andhra University had addressed a communication to the Minister for Law and Religious Endowments, specifying acts of mismanagement by the College Committee. This led to an inquiry by the Special Officer, who recommended the appointment of a Treasurer. The court found that there was factual data before the Government to justify its actions and that there was no evidence to suggest that the Government was swayed by extraneous considerations or acted in bad faith.4. Impact of the Appointment of a Treasurer on the Society's Property Rights:The petitioner contended that the appointment of a Treasurer would result in the society ceasing to hold property, which would violate the petitioner's rights. The court clarified that the appointment of a Treasurer under the Charitable Endowments Act does not result in divesting the society of its property. The vesting in the Treasurer is only for certain specified purposes, and there is no transference of any property from the society to the Treasurer. The Treasurer does not administer the property or impose the duty of a trustee with respect to the administration thereof.5. Alleged Violation of Constitutional Rights under Articles 19(1)(g) and 31:The petitioner argued that the appointment of a Treasurer would violate the petitioner's rights under Articles 19(1)(g) and 31 of the Constitution. The court held that the petitioner has no beneficial interest in the property that requires protection under these Articles. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in the case of the Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowments v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Sirur Mutt, which held that control or supervision over the administration of endowments does not interfere with the rights of trustees. Therefore, the appointment of a Treasurer and the vesting of properties in him for the purposes specified in the Charitable Endowments Act do not offend the fundamental rights of the petitioner.Conclusion:The writ petition was dismissed with costs, and the court held that the Charitable Endowments Act is applicable to the society, the application for the appointment of a Treasurer was valid, the Government's actions were justified based on factual data, and there was no violation of the petitioner's constitutional rights.