LexH. H. SHRI SWAMIJI OF SHRI ADMAR MUTI, ETC. versus THE COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS & CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT & ORS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
368
H. H. SHRI SWAMIJI OF SHRI ADMAR MUTI, ETC.
v.
THE COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS & CHARITABLE
ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT & ORS.
August 27, 1979
[Y. v. CHANDRACHUD, C.J., v. R. KRISHNA IYER, N. L. UNTWALTA,
P. N. SHINGHAL AND A. D. KosHAL, JJ.]
States Reorganisation Act, 1956-A district transferred from one State to
another-Continued application of the law applicable in the former State even
after transfer-Validity of.
Section 109-Commissioner of Religious Endowments-A body corpora1e-
Co:nnlissioner, if could exercise powers under the Act creating
hinl as body
corporate if no directions issued by the Central Government.
Fees and Tax-Nature of.
The re.ligious Mutts, of which the (appellants were Mathadhipatis,
\Vere
situated in the District of South Kanara which formerly was in the State of
Madras.
Section 76(1) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitabie En-
dowments Act, 1951, the law applicable to the Mutts, provides tb:it in respect
of services rendered by the Government and their officers and for defraying
the expenses incurred on account of such services, every religious institution
shall, from the income derived by it, pay to the Commissioner annually such
contribution not exceeding 5% of its income as may be prescribed. Conse-
quent upon the reorganisation of States in 1956 the District of South Kanara
was transferred to the State of Mysore.
By reason of the provisions of the
States Reorganisation Act the Madras Act of 1951 continued to apply to the
Mutts in the district even after their transfer to the State of My-sore.
The
Government ot Mysore issued a notification authorising the Commissioner for
Settlement and Charitable Endowments for ~Iysore to exercise the functions
of the Commissioner under the Madras Act.
In A.pril, 1964 when the Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments, Mysore issued a notice to the appelJants demanding payment of
certain contributions for the years 1957 to 1960 the appellants denied their
liability to pay the amounts on the ground that (1) the Commissioner had no
power to demand payment of contributions for the period
subsequent
to
November, 1956 (when the District was transferred from the former State of
1\{adras to the State of Mysore); (2) that the demands were excessive and
bore no relationship with the services rendered by the department and (3)
that the expenditure incurred on the maintenance of staff and officers of the
Comn1issioner's office could not wholly or in part be recovered
from the
appellants by way of contributions under s.76(1) of the Madras Act of !951.
All the contentions v:ere rejected by the Commissioner.
The appellants
thereupon filed writ petitions in the High Court impugning the C:ommi'isioner's
crders.
The High Court dismissed the writ petitions.
•
'
A,
•
H. H. SWAM!JI V. COMMISSIONER
369
On appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellants that
(1) the notification issued by the Mysore Government authorising: the Com-
rnitsioner to exercise the functions of the Commissioner under the Madras
Act was invalid because the Commissioner being a Corporation Sole the only
authority competent to issue a notification in this behalf under s.109( I) of the
States Reorganisation Act 1956 was the Central Government; (2)
that the
demands made by the Commissioner for payment of fees were illegal because
cc.nsidering the services rendered to them they were excessive; (3) that the
application of the Madras A.Ct to one district only offends against the gua-
rantee of equality contained in Art. 14 because the Mutts. were required to
pay fees '\Vhich similar institutions situated in other areas of the State were
not required to pay and ( 4) th~t though the i:-ihir.l application of the Madras
Act of 1951 to the District was not violative, its continued application offends
against the guarantee of equality.
Dismis5ing the appeals,
HELD: I. The provisions of s.109(1) of the States Reorganisation Act do
not support the argument that the Commissioner being a Corporation Sole the
on1y ~uthority competent to isiiiue the notification under s. 122 was the Central
Govern1nent.
Though the body corporate hai to functioa within the scope
of and in accordance with the directions iiiued by the Central Government
from time to time, its power to function under the parent Act is not condi-
tional on the issuance of directions by the Central Government. lf directiExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.