COMMISSIONER OF HINDU RELIGIOUS & CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS, MYSORE versus U. KRISHNA RAO & ORS.

Citation: [1970] 2 S.C.R. 917 · Decided: 17-10-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

917 
A 
COMMISSIONER OF HINDU RELIGIOUS & CHARITABLE 
ENDOWMENTS, MYSORE 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
v. 
U. KRISHNA RAO & ORS. 
October 17, 1969 
[J. C. SHAH AND K. S. tlEGDE; JJ.] 
ll-1adras Hirzdu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 
1951, as 
amended by Act 27 of 1954-SectiollS 76(1) and JOO-Nature of comri-
bution leviable-Rules prescribing the levy need not be /rained for indivi~ 
dual tenzples. 
In 1955 the Government of Madras framed Rules under the Madras 
Hindu Religious and Chaiitable Endowments Act, 1951, as amended by 
Act 27 of 1954, prescribing a graduated scale of rates of contribution 
unde· s. 76(1) of the Act. The rules remained in force in the State of 
MyH.ue after reorganisation df the State of Madras and applied to the 
temples in the South Kanara district which \Vas incorporated in the Mysore 
State. On a petition by the re~pondents,-trustees of a temple in the 
South Kanara district, the High Court of Mysore in D~vra;a Shenoy v. 
The Siate of Mysore [196J Mys. L.J. 2451 declared invalid certain provi-
sions of the amended Act imposing control upon the administration of 
ternph:s governed by the Act. Thereafter thl! 
Assistant Commissioner of 
Relig:ous Endowments directed the respondents to pay the arrears of con~ 
tribution and audit !fee. 
The respondents again moved the High Court 
challenging the validity of the demand. 
The High Court upheld their ple1 
on the ground that no rules had been framed under s. 100 of the Act, 
and, therefore, the demand for ·recovery of contribution was premature. 
The decision of the High Court was largely influenced by some ob~ervations 
made in the judgment in Devra;a Shenoy's case. The court observed that 
since what was stated in that case 0,1 behalf of the State was that the 
amount o'f contribution payable by the petitioner (respondent) temple had 
tJJ be prescribed by a rule which 'remained to be made it meant that what 
was decided was that no contribution could be recovered from the temple 
until such a rule was made. 
Regarding the demand for arrears of audit 
fee the court held that the Commissioner had not "determined~' the cost of 
auditing the account of the respondent temple under s. 76 (2) of the Act 
and the demand was "on that account without competence or authority 
of law." In appeal to this Court, 
HELD : (i) It is true that the High Court declared invalid certain pro-
visions of the Act imposing control over the 
admini~tration of temples 
governed by the Act. 
But on that account the power to m:ike rllles v;as 
not restricted nor were the rules 1framed by the government rendered in· 
valid. The assumption made by the High Court that the Government had to 
make under s. 100 rules applicable to each temple separately and prescrib· 
ing the levy for determining contribution, :finds no support in the provisions 
of the Act or its scheme. Under the Act a fee though levied for rendering 
services of a particular type need not be co-related to the services perform· 
ed for each individual who is intended to obtain the benefit of the services. 
The co-relation must be between the expenses incurred by the authority levy-
ing the fee for generally providing the service and the aggregate of the levv 
from persons who are to be made subject thereto. It is a necessary corol-
lary that general rules prescribing the levy of fee from· religious endow-
ments have to be made and not rules governing individual endowinents. 
Such general rules were in fact "·;nmed and \Vere in operation when the 
' 
918 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1970] 2 S.C.R. 
demand. was made. The concession made by the Advocate-General at the 
hearing in Devraja Shenoy's case did not oblige the State to 'frame separate 
rules in respect of each individual religious institution. Even if the respon-
dent temple did not need the services or did not obtain benefit of the ser-
vices provided the contribution would still be recoverable. 
Becaus.! the 
rules were framed at a time \Vhen several different kinds of services were 
intended to be rendered and the court later struck down certain provisions 
cYf the Act under which services \vere to be rendered, the rules framed in 
1955 cannot be held to be inapplicable. (921 A-B, G; 922 E, G-923 Bl 
H. H. Sudhindra Thirtha Swnn1iar v. Conunissioner for Hindu Religi-
ous & Charitable Endowments, Mysore, 
[19631 Supp. 2 S.C.R. 302, re-
ferred to. 
A 
B 
(ii) It was not the case Of the re3pondents 
in their petition in 
the 
High Court that the Commissi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.