NALAM RAMALINGAYYA HEREDITARY TRUSTEE OF NALAM CHO Vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF CHARITABLE AND HINDU RELIGIOUS
LAWS(APH)-1969-12-34
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on December 31,1969

Nalam Ramalingayya Hereditary Trustee Of Nalam Cho Appellant
VERSUS
The Commissioner Of Charitable And Hindu Religious Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

KRISHNA BHAT HIRAGANGE V. KAPABHAT MAHALBHAT ET AL [REFERRED TO]
BALVANTRAV T. BAPAJI V. PURSHOTAM SIDHE,SHVAR [REFERRED TO]
GANESH GHUNDER DHUR V. LAL BEHARY DHUR [REFERRED TO]
GNANASAMBANDA PANDARA SANNADHI V. VELU PANDARAM [REFERRED TO]
MAHARANA FATTESHSANGJI V. DESSAI KALLAN RAIJI HEKOOMUT RAIJI [REFERRED TO]
VIDYAPURNA TIRTHASWAMI V. VIDYANIDHI TIRTHASWAMI [REFERRED TO]
ANNAYYA TANTRI V. AMMAKKA [REFERRED TO]
BHABATARINI V. ASHALATA [REFERRED TO]
MUTHIA ASARI V. MADASANI ASARI [REFERRED TO]
NAMBOORIPAD V. C. D. BOARD [REFERRED TO]
R. VENKATARAMANI V. MADRAS H. R. & C.E. BOARD [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KALI KUER V. RAM RATTAN [REFERRED TO]
S. D. PANDARA SANNADHI V. STATE OF MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
SRI SHIRUR MUTTA V. COMMISSIONER H. R. E. BOARD [REFERRED TO]
CHARANJIT LAL CHOWDHARY VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
ANGURBALS MULLICK VS. DEBABRATA MULLICK [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL HABIB MOHAMMAD STATE OF HYDERABAD STATE OF MYSORE VS. ANWAR ALI SARKAR:ANWAR ALI SARKAR [REFERRED TO]
JAGANNATH RAMANUJ DAS VS. STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER HINDU RELIGIOUS ENDOW MENTS MADRAS VS. LAKSHMINDRA THIRTHA SWAMIAR OF SHIRUR MUTT [REFERRED TO]
RATILAL PANACHAND GANDHI VS. STATE OF BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
PURSHOTTAM GOVINDJI HALAI VS. B M DESAI ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR OF BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
DEOKI NANDAN VS. MARLIDHAR [REFERRED TO]
COLLECTOR OF MALABAR VS. ERIMMAL EBRAHIM HAJEE [REFERRED TO]
VENKATARAMANA DEVARU STATE OF MYSORE VS. STATE OF MYSORE:VENKATARAMANA DEVARU [REFERRED TO]
RAM KRISHNA DALMIA SHRIYANS PRASAD JAIN JAI DAYAL DALMIA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
GULLAPALLI NAGESWARA RAO VS. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]
MAHANT RAM SAROOP DASJI VS. S P SAHI SPECIAL OFFICER IN CHARGE OF HINDU RELIGIOUS TRUSTS [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. CHARUSILA DASI [REFERRED TO]
MAHANT MOTI DAS MAHANT SHIA RAM DAS MAHANT NARAIN DAS MAHANT MAHABIR DAS MAHANT RAM KRISHNA DAS VS. S P SAHI THE STATE OF BIHAR THE PRESIDENT BIHAR STATE BOARD OF RELIGIOUS TRUSTS [REFERRED TO]
JYOTI PERSHAD MAHTAB SINGH SURENDAR DEV GAUR VS. ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE UNION TERRITORY OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]
LA SUBRAMANYA DESIGA GNANASAM BADA PANDARASANNADHI VS. STATE OF MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
MANNA LAL VS. COLLECTOR OF JHALAWAR [REFERRED TO]
P J IRANI VS. STATE OF MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
SARDAR SYEDNA TAHER SAIFUDDIN SAHEB VS. STATE OF BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
LACHHMAN DASS ON BEHALF OF FIRM TILAK RAM RAM BUX NAND RAM TULSI RAM TILAK RAM RAM BUX VS. STATE OF PUNJAB:STATE BANK OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
SWAMI MOTOR TRANSPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED MOHAMED SHERIFF THE ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF MADRAS NEW THEATRES CARNATIC TALKIES VS. SANKARASWAMIGAL MUTT:HAZARATHI SYED SHAMAIN:SANKARASWAMIGAL MUTT:SANKARASWAMIGAL MUTT [REFERRED TO]
SUDHINDRA THIRTHA SWAMIAR VS. COMMISSIONER FOR HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS MYSORE [REFERRED TO]
TILKAYAT SHRI GOVINDLALJI MAHARAJ TRIYAMBAK LAL GOSWAMI SHN CILANSHYAMLAIJI TILKAYAT SHRI GOWINDLAIJI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
RAJA BIRA KISHORE DEB HEREDITARY SUPERINTENDENT JAGANNATH TEMPLE P 0 AND DISTRICT PURI VS. STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED TO]
LALA SHRI BHAGWAN VS. RAM CHAND [REFERRED TO]
NORTHERN INDIA CATERERS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
K L GUPTE PADAMAKAR BALKRISHNA SAMANT INDIA FARMERS PRIVATE LIMITED BOMBAY LAXMISINGH UDITSINGH VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
KANTETI SASTRULU VS. MADUPALLI VENKATESWARA RAO [REFERRED TO]
GOPALASWAMI VARI TEMPLE TIMMAPURAM VS. COMMISSIONER FOR HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS ANDHRA PRADESH HYDERABAD [REFERRED TO]
K SANKARAN NAIR VS. NALLACHERI GOVINDAN NAMBIAR [REFERRED TO]
DWARKADAS SHRINIVAS VS. SHOLAPUR SPG ANDWVG CO LTD [REFERRED TO]
VIDYA VARUTHI THIRTHA VS. BALUSAMI AYYAR [REFERRED TO]
T P SRINIVASA CHARIAR VS. CNEVALAPPA MUDALIAR [REFERRED TO]
SOMASEKHARA ROYAL VS. SUGUTUR MAHADEVA ROYAL [REFERRED TO]
KIDANGAZHI MANAKKAL NARAYANAN NAMBUDIRIPAD AND ORS. VS. STATE OF MADRAS, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, FIRKA DEVELOPMENT AND ANR. [REFERRED TO]
BASAVALINGASWAMI, MATADHIPATHI OF SRI VIRAKTHI MATH VS. THE COMMISSIONER FOR HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

P. ASHOK GAJAPATHI RAJU VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2021-6-5] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

KONDAIAH,J. - (1.)This batch of applications by the hereditary trustees or persons in management of religious or charitable institutions, under Article 226 of the Constitution, is to declare the provisions of Sections 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 12, 14 to 17, 20 to 21, 25 to 29, 35, 36, 38 to 40 and 50 to 56, 77 and others of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act (Act XVII of 1966) (hereinafter called 'the Act') as unconstitutional and ultra vires.
(2.)There are as many as 102 petitions which are now before us for consideration. It is expedient to make a brief statement of the various allegations in the several affidavits filed in support of the petitions. It may be noted at the very outset that some of the institutions or endowments in question are admittedly public. The others, of course, are claimed to be private in character. These alleged private institutions, endowments and societies are registered under the Societies Registration Act and on that account it is averred that the provisions of the Act are not applicable to them. Some claim to be religious denominations within the meaning of Art. 26 of the Constitution as they profess and follow the tenets and philosophy of Vasavi, otherwise known as Kanyakaparameswari, and as such claim that they are entitled to manage their own affairs of religion and the properties of the institutions and endowments without any interference. The Lingayats in some of the petitions set up a like claim on a similar basis. There are hereditary trustees and other persons who are in charge of the management of the institutions or endowments. All the petitioners claim that they are entitled to manage the institutions and their properties in their own right without any interference from the functionaries under the Act and that they are continuing in management hereditarily since generations and managing the institutions efficiently and diligently without giving room for any adverse comment or imputation of charges of mismanagement, mis-appropriation or malfeasance and, in fact, they have improved the institutions and funds to a great extent. They allege that the respondents are illegally trying to interfere with their management by asking them to produce accounts and records, requiring them to get the institutions registered under the provisions of the Act and making efforts to notify the institutions or endowments under section 6; to appoint non-hereditary trustees and executive officers and to constitute Boards of Trustees even though their management is found to be good and efficient. They aver that the office of hereditary trusteeship is property within the meaning of Article 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution and that the material provisions of the Act are unconstitutional and ultra vires as the same are hit by the provisions of Arts. 14, 19 (1) (f), 25, 26 and 31 of the Constitution of India. Hence these writ petitions.
(3.)The respondents countered the material allegations in the affidavits filed by the petitioners, contending inter alia that all the petitioners-institutions are public and none of them private in character, that they are religious and charitable institutions and endowments within the meaning of the Act and are amenable to the jurisdiction of the functionaries under the Act, that none of these institutions or endowments are religious denominations or a section thereof within the meaning of Article 26 of the Constitution, that none of the hereditary trustees in the State has any beneficial interest in the institutions oi endowed properties except a bare right to manage the affairs of the institutions and secular matters, that the office of hereditary trusteeship is not property within the meaning of Art 19 (1) (f), that none of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioners has been infringed, that the Andhra Pradesh State Legislature is competent to enact the impugned Act, that all the provisions of the Act are valid and intra vires and none of the provisions is hit by Art. 14, 19 (1) (f), 25, 26 and 31 of the Constitution, that the action of the respondents complained of in these applications is justified in law as well as on facts, that there is no merit in any of the grounds raised by the petitioners and that these applications merit dismissal.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.