Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

9. The contention with regard to Art. 19(1)(f) is being raised inter linking the same with the contention regarding Art. 19(1)(c). As we saw from the rules, governing the Institution, it is only the life members who shall be the trustees of the properties of the Institution. There shall be five fife members and the power of nomination of successors was given only to Periyar E. V. Ramaswamy and Mrs.- E. V. R. Mani. They alone had the powers to nominate their successors to the offices of the President and the Secretary. This power of nomination is not available to other life members and if there is a vacancy by death or resignation in the offices of the other life members, the place shall be filled up by other life members. With regard to the Charitable Society, its properties, movable and immovable vest in its President. The present incumbent in the office of the President is a life president. The case of the Charitable Society is also put forth more or less from, the same angle as the case of the Institution. If life membership or office is to be put an end to, by virtue of the application of S. 15(3) and (4) of Tamil Nadu Act 27 of 1975, then the vesting of the properties in the trustees or the life president could not survive and the vesting will be only in the Committee as we could see from S. 18 thereof. It is claimed that the life members who are trustees or life President by virtue of their being such derive the right to hold property within the meaning of Art. 19(1)(f) and this is being put an end to by Tamil Nadu Act 27 of 1975. It is also contended that the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 27 of 1975 cannot fall within the restrictive Legislation saved under Art. 19(4) with reference to Art. 19(1)(c) and 19(5) with reference to Art. 19(1)(f). It is submitted that Tamil Nadu Act 27 of 1975 is not a law imposing reasonable restriction in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India or public order or morality within the meaning of Art. 19(4) and equally so it cannot be stated to be a law imposing reasonable restriction in the interests of the general public or for the protection of the interests of any scheduled tribe.