Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. The petitioner who is a resident of Cuttack and is a tax-payer of various taxes levied by the State Government has filed this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the State of Orissa to forbear from spending any amount from the public funds of the State for renovation of the tanks of Markanda, Narendra and Sweta-ganga at Puri. It is stated in the petition that these tanks are held in high reverence by the Hindu public who use then, for religious purposes and periodical religious rites of Lord Jagannath of Puri are performed there. Spending of money from out of the funds of the State for renovation of these tanks amounts to maintenance of the Hindu religion which is forbidden by Article 27 of the Constitution and it is consequently alleged that the State Government cannot incur the expenditure.

2. The State in its counter-affidavit contends that the tanks in question are used by the general public for bathing and drinking purposes. It was found that the tanks were in a state of disrepair and had become places for breeding of mosquitoes. Persistent complaints were received from the public for repair and improvement of the tanks and there was agitation against the inaction of Government in not repairing and renovating these tanks. The matter was discussed a meeting of the Lodging House Fund Committee at Puri and after discussion it was thought that the renovation of the aforesaid tanks would constitute improvement in the sanitary conditions of the above places. Thus to provide for better facilities for bathing and drinking water, the State Government decided to all some funds for renovation of these tanks. As the Puri Municipality which is virtually responsible for sanitation of the Puri town as well as to provide for better bathing facilities to various people residing and visiting the place had no sufficient funds to take up repair work of the tanks. Government allotted three lakhs of rupees to the Puri Municipality to repair the tanks. The Lodging House Fund Committee, Puri also sanctioned three lakhs of rupees for the purpose. These tanks are open for use by the public irrespective of caste or religion and consequently spending of money for renovation of these tanks does not constitute maintenance of any particular religion and is therefore not hit by Article 27 of the Constitution. It is lastly contended that the petitioner who is not compelled to pay any particular tax to be specifically appropriated for renovation of the tanks has no locus standi to file the petition.

6. Now coming to the merits of the several contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner, it is to be noted that what Article 27 of the Constitution prohibits is taxation or the specific appropriation of the proceeds of any tax for the promotion or maintenance of any particular religion or religious denomination. Unless, therefore, any particular religion or religious denomination is either promoted or maintained by any grant made by Government, this Article has no application. There is no dispute that taxes collected from the public have gone into the Consolidated Fund of the State and that out of the Consolidated Fund the grant has either been made or is going to be made for the purpose of renovation, of certain tanks in Purl town. The petitioner has filed in Court the report of the Special Officer under "The Puri Shri Jagannath Temple Act" (Act XIV of 1952) from which it appears that the tanks in question, belong to the deity Shri Lord Jagannath. It is, therefore, argued by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the grant by the State Government of a sum of money for the renovation of the tanks belonging to Lord Jagannath a Hindu deity amounts to promotion and maintenance of the Hindu religion. Although Lord Jagannath may be owner of the tanks, yet it is asserted in the counter-affidavit and not denied by the petitioner that these tanks are open for use by the general public for drinking and bathing purposes. It is further asserted that as these tanks were in a state of disrepair and had become breeding places for mosquitos, there was persistent demand from the public for repair and improvement of the tanks and consequently a grant of three lakhs of rupees was made by Government from out of the Consolidated Fund of the State to the Puri Municipality for the specific purpose of utilising the amount in renovation of the tanks. It cannot, therefore, be said in the circumstances stated above that by making the grant, the State was either promoting or maintaining the Hindu religion. A reference in this connection may be made to a decision of the Privy Council in Amulya Chandra Banerjee v. Corporation of Calcutta, AIR 1922 PC 333. In that case, the Corporation of Calcutta compulsorily acquired certain lands near the famous Kali temple of Calcutta for the purpose of constructing a Dharma-sala to accommodate the pilgrims visiting the temple. It was contended that the Dharmasala is excluded from the term "public purpose" because the persons mainly interested would have been the worshippers of the temple. Their Lordships stated--

8. It was then argued on behalf of the petitioner that even assuming that the tanks were in unhygienic condition and were a hazard to the sanitation of the town, the responsibility to remove the unhygienic condition rests on the Puri Municipality and that no money can be spent for that purpose from the consolidated fund of the State. There is absolutely no merit in this contention. Article 282 of the Constitution confers a very wide discretion on a State Government. It is for the State Government to decide what is a public purpose and what is not a public purpose. If the Government purports to spend money for a purpose which it characterises as a public purpose, though in point of fact it is not so, the proper place to criticise the action of the Government would be the Legislature or the Appropriation Committee. The court shall not be the forum in which Government's action can be criticised or restrained. The business of governing the State is entrusted by the Constitution to the executive Government. How to spend public monies is part of the executive functions of the Government and it is not permissible to the High Court to interfere with the powers of the Government in this respect under Article 226 of the Constitution.