Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. One Mr. Grandhi Ramachandra Rao, who was the then member of the Trust Board of Arya Vysya Sangham, Ponnur also filed counter affidavit reiterating the above contentions stated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 and sought for dismissal of the leave petition.

6. The learned Counsel appearing for the leave petitioner Sri M. Sudheer Kumar contended that the judgment and decree of the trial court are contrary to law. He contended that the trial court on the one hand declared that Sri Vasavi Kanyaka Parameswari Temple Complex situate at Ponnur as a religious denomination under Article 26 of the Constitution of India and on the other hand decreed that the plaintiffs -committee has right to nominate its members as trustees. He contended that these two reliefs cannot be granted. He submitted that if the said institution is recognized as religious denomination under Article 26 of the Constitution of India, then for appointment of Board of Trustees, the procedure prescribed under Sections 15 and 17 of the Act, which contemplates issuance of notification to the general public calling for applications for appointment of trustees, has to be followed. He stated that the leave petitioner belongs to Arya Vysya Community of Ponnur town and by the judgment and decree of the trial court, his statutory right to apply for trusteeship is affected and therefore, he contended that the petitioner may be granted leave to challenge the judgment and decree. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Pullayya v. Nagabhushanam 1961 An.W.R. 204 : AIR 1962 A.P. 140. He contended that though the leave petitioner is not a party to the suit, since he is affected by the decree, he has right to file the appeal. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgments of the Bombay High Court and Apex Court in F. Mohd. Abdul Razak v. Chanty Commr . and Jatan Kanwar v. Golcha Properties . . He contended that even if the institution is declared as religious denomination under Article 26 of the Constitution of India, it is bound by law. In support of this contention, he relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Sri Adi Visheshwara of Kashi Vishwanath Temple v. State of U.P. . With regard to merits of the appeal, he also relied on Sri Kanyaka Parameswari Anna Satram Committee v. Commissioner . Hindu Religious Charitable and Endowments. He submitted that earlier the plaintiffs filed W.P. No. 21663/2000 and in the said writ petition, the leave petitioner got impleaded by filing WPMP. No. 24874/2001 and some others also filed batch of writ petitions for similar relief and during the pendency of the writ petitions, the suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed and as soon as he came to know of the decree, he filed the appeal in the year 2001 and for grant of leave, he filed the present petition and there is no question of any bar of limitation. With these submissions, the learned Counsel for the petitioner sought the leave of this court to file the appeal.

11. From the counter filed by the Endowments Department to the suit it is clear that the present Devasthanam was recognized under Section 6 (c) of the Act and was included for preparation and publication of the list of Charitable and Religious Institutions and Endowments under Section 6 of the Act. Therefore, as per Section 15(3) of the Act, the Assistant Commissioner is having jurisdiction to constitute a Board of Trustees consisting of five persons appointed by him. In the interest of the institution or any sufficient cause or for any reasons, the Assistant Commissioner by recording the reasons in writing, is empowered to appoint a single trustee. The procedure for making appointment of trustees viz., calling for applications, verification of antecedents, their tenure, etc, is stipulated under Section 17 of the Act. A reading of these two provisions, makes it clear that trustees have to be appointed as per the procedure prescribed there under and there is no specific Clause that trustees have to be appointed only from out of the members of the religious denomination. Therefore, I am of the view that in the judgment and decree of the court below, there appears to be some deviation from the procedure prescribed under Sections 15 and 17 of the Act, which has to be considered in the appeal.