K ERANNA Vs. COMMISSIONER FOR H R AND C E

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As common questions arise for consideration in these two writ petitions, they are heard together and a common order is passed. The petitioner in W.P. No. 4785 of 1969 has been the trustee of three temples, viz., Mallikarjuna Swamy Temple, Anjaneya Temple and Somalapura Anjaneya Swamy Temple, situate at Maiapanagudi village in Hospet Taluk, Bellary District. He is also a devotee of the temples. It is alleged that prior to his being appointed as a trustee, his father was the trustee of the above said institutions, and on his resignation, the petitioner was appointed as a trustee for the aforesaid institutions in November 1060. The Area Committee of Bellary passed a resolution on 30-5-1969, appointing respondents Nos. 5 to 9 as trustees of the above said temples. The petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid resolution, filed a revision petition before the first respondent under S. 18 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951. The first respondent passed orders on 21-8-1969 dismissing the petitioner's revision petition. The petitioner, therefore, has filed this writ petition praying that the resolution bearing No. 1421 ADC 168-69 passed by the Area Committee, Bellary, on 30-5-1969, and the order dated 21-8-1969 passed by the first respondent be quashed.

(2.) Petitioners in W.P.No.6542 of 1969 are also devotees of the temples in question. The first petitioner is a hereditary Pujari of Mallikarjuna Swamy Temple. They are also aggrieved by the resolution made by the Area Committee on 30-5-1969, appointing respondents 3 to 7, who are respondents 5 to 9 in the connected writ petition, as trustees for a period of five years. The petitioners being aggrieved by the aforesaid resolution, have filed the writ petition for a declaration that the resolution dated 30-5-1969 passed by the Area Committee, is illegal, null and void; and respondents 3 to 7 are legally constituted Trustees oi' the temples in question.

(3.) From the true copy of the resolution of the Area Committee, it is seen that the appointment of the trustees is made in exercise of its powers under S.41 read with S.39 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 (hereinafter called the Act). It is contended by petitioners that the Area Committee was not competent to pass the above said resolution, in view of the fact that Ss. 39 and 41 of the Act have been struck down as being invalid by this Court in its decision reported in K. Mukundaraya Shenoy v. State of Mysore.