O.P.JAIN, J. - (1.) PETITIONER No. 1 Rishikul Brahmacharya Ashram (hereinafter called the Ashram) has filed this writ petition through its President with a prayer to quash order dated 22nd February, 1981 (Annexure XII) and order dated 6th March, 1981 (Annexure XVI) passed by the State Government whereby the State Government has ordered that the property belonging to the Ashram is vested in the Treasurer, Charitable En­dowments Uttar Pradesh. This order has been passed under Section 4 of the Charitable Endowments Act of 1890 (hereinafter called the Act) as amended by Uttar Pradesh Charitable Endowments (Extension of Powers) Act of 1950 (U.P. Act No. XX of 1950) (which is hereafter called the U.P. Act).
(2.) THE Ashram is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act of 1860 and its object is to impart religious education and training and to carry on other activities mentioned in the Memorandum of Association which is An­nexure 1 to the petition. Various depart­ments of the Institution are described in Annexure 2. Till 1968 the Ashram was receiving Government grant from the Education Department of the State Government and the Central Govern­ment. These grants were stopped in the year 1969. The petitioner has purchased land from time to time and it has about 125 Bighas land in its occupation. It appears that the Society was being run by funds donated by its members at Calcutta. On 26th December, 1978 a notice was issued to petitioner No.1to show cause why the movable and immovable properties of the Society be not vested in the Treasurer under Sections 3 and 4 of the U.P. Act. This notice is Annexure V to the petition and was replied vide Annexure VI to the peti­tion. The reply did not satisfy the Govern­ment and another notice dated 22nd February, 1981 was issued by the Govern­ment which is Annexure XII to the peti­tion and petitioner No. 1 was informed that the Government has decided to take action under Section 3/4 of the Act as amended by U.P. Act No. XX of 1950. This notice was followed by impugned order Annexure XVI dated 6th March, 1981 by which the properties of petitioner No. 1 have been ordered to vest in the Treasurer of Charitable Endowments. Petitioner No. 1 has challenged the validity of notice Annexure XII and order Annexure XVI on various grounds but during the course of the arguments only one ground was pressed. This ground is to the effect that the impugned order is not a speaking order. It does not show as to which of the charges were found to have been proved and no reasons have been recorded for passing the order. 3-A. We have heard Sri H.S. Nigam learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Yatindra Singh, learned Addl. Advocate General appear­ing on behalf of the respondents.
(3.) LEARNED Addl. Advocate General relied on Pamulapati Buchi Naidu College Committee, Nidubrolu and others v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others, AIR 1958 Andhra Pradesh 773, in which it has been held that an educational purpose is included within the definition of 'charitable purpose. Where the property is held by a College Committee for an educa­tional purpose, it can be the subject-mat­ter of vesting in a treasurer under Section 4 of the Act provided the other conditions prescribed by the Act are complied with. It was further held that the members of the Society or the members of the Governing body do not have any proprietary or beneficiary interest in the property which the Society holds. The Court went on to say that Section 4 of the Act provides that the appropriate Government can appoint a Treasurer if it thinks fit. Therefore, it is left to the subjective satisfaction of the Government to find whether the condi­tions necessary for the exercise of their discretion under the Section are satisfied in a given case. If they are satisfied that there was a valid application before them on which they could act and if they think fit to appoint a Treasurer it is not for the High Court to substitute its opinion for those of the Government. The High Court can and will only interfere it is alleged and proved that the Government in taking the decision 'or in being satisfied have been swayed by extraneous consideration or that their action has been mala fide. Where no such allegations have been made it is not within competence of the High Court to pronounce upon the ques­tion as to whether the Government should or should not have been satisfied about the necessity for the appointment of a Treasurer. 4-A. It, however, appears that the case law on the point has undergone a vast change during the last 40 years. It has been held in Km. Neelima Misra v. Dr. Harinder Kaur Paintaland others, AIR 1990 SC1402 that an administrative order which invol­ves civil consequence must give reasons. The same view has been taken in S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1984 in which the following observations have been made in paragraph 39. "For the reasons aforesaid, it must be con­cluded that except in cases where the require­ment has been dispensed with expressly or by necessary implication, an administrative authority exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions is required to record the reasons for its decision." ;