Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

12. Shri D.D. Thakur contended that Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Board is a controlled Corporation. The repeal of Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31 of the Constitution of India by Sections 2 and 6 respectively of the Constitution (44th Amendment) Act, 1976 w.e.f. June 20, 1979 does not apply to the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The right to property is, therefore, still a fundamental right to the residents of Jammu and Kashmir. The Act does not make either any provision for payment of compensation or principle or guidelines for determination of compensation to Baridars. The Board being a controlled Corporation, as an arm of the Government, all the properties of the Shrine stand vested in the Government. The Governor, though is an ex-officio Chairman, he nominates the members of the Board as executive-head of the State. If the Governor happens to be a non-Hindu, he has to nominate an eminent Hindu qualified to be a member of the Board. The object to empower the Governor to preside over the Board as its Chairman, is to ensure its control by the State. The Governor being the head of the executive, exercises the powers of nomination within the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. The Chief Executive Officer, the District Magistrate and Chief Accounts Officer, Deputy Director of Accounts are the Government servants drawn from the different Departments of the Government. The Governor, therefore, exercises executive power of the State under the Constitution of the Jammu and Kashmir and Constitution of India, unless the relevant provisions of the latter are not extended. The executive power of the Governor, thus, flows from the sovereign power of the State. The statutory power under the Act is integral to the executive power which flows from the Constitution. The Governor, therefore, is the repository of the State power exercised by the executive. Various powers conferred on the Hindu Governor are exercisable by virtue of the statute as Governor. Therefore, in his capacity as the executive Head, the Governor is required to exercise the power under the Act with the aid and advise of the Council of Ministers. Even otherwise, he exercises the powers under the Act ex-officio as Governor of the State. Therefore, in either event, he is the repository of executive power of the State. When the Governor supersedes or reconstitutes the Board with perpetual succession and seal, he exercises the executive power of the State Government and, therefore, the Board is a State controlled Corporation. In support thereof, he placed reliance on Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab , and Ram Nagina Singh v. Sohni . He also placed reliance on Mansingh Surajsingh Padvi v. State of Maharashtra ; S. Gurmukh Singh v. Union of India ; Home Telephone and Telegraph Company v. City of Los Angeles (1912) 57 Law ed. 510; 227 US 278, and a passage, from, Kishan Singh v. State of Rajasthan the concept of control under the Act, he placed strong reliance on the meaning of the word 'control' in Black's Law Dictionary (6th Edn.) at page 329, Commr. of Income-tax, Kerala, Ernakulam v. V.V. Ramakrishnan , In re; Kodur Thimma Reddi AIR 1957 Andh Pra 758. Right to receive offering from the pilgrims was held to be property of Baridars by this Court in, Badri Nath v. Mst. Punna (Dead) by LRs. . Offerings and other properties were acquired under the Act and got vested in the controlled Corporation, viz., the Board. For their abolition, Baridars are entitled to compensation. Section 19 docs not prescribe compensation for payment nor it lay any principle to determine compensation. Therefore, the Act is ultra vires of the power of the Legislature.

28. It is seen that Section 2 gives overriding effect to the Act over any contrary law or any scheme of the management, decree, custom, usage or instrument. The Act, therefore, abolishes the customary right or duty of service as Baridar and the receipt of offerings being conditioned upon performing Pooja, he loses the right with cessation of performing service. Right to receive offerings, by operation of Section 19(1) of the Act has ceased. The question is; whether the State controls the vesting of the properties and the i Board is a controlled Corporation within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution ? By operation of Section 6, the Board is a body corporate with perpetual succession and seal with a right to sue or be sued by or in the name of the Board: The sum total of properties are of and vest in the Shrine. The management of the Shrine and, the Shrine Fund stood vested in the Board under Section 4. The appellants had the fundamental right to property guaranteed by Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Though the Constitution (44th Amendment) Act, 1978 which came into force w.e.f. June 29,1979, deleted Article 19(1)(g) and Article 31 by operation of Sections 2 and 6 thereof, they would still be available to the residents of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, In Bela Banerjee v. State of West Bengal , Article 31(3) and Article 31(2) of the Constitution were interpreted by the Constitution Bench and it was held that the word 'compensation' must mean a full and fair money equivalent. The same ratio was followed in State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh . The Constitution (5th Amendment) Act was made in 1955 amending Article 31(2) and also introducing Articled 1(2A). It would, therefore, be necessary to look into those provisions relevant to the case since they were operative in the field when the Act was enacted. They read as under :