LexSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH versus S. M. K. PARASURAMA GURUKUL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A c E F G H STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. S. M. K. PARASURAMA GURUKUL May 3, 1973 [D. G. PALEKAR AND A. ALAGIRISWAMI, JJ.J 191 Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu ReU15ious Jnsti1utior1s and E11d0Jv- n1e11ts Act, 1966, Ss. 6, 15, 16 and 82-Appointnient of trustee-If qu1tsi- judicit1l function. Under s. 15(i)(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religi911s Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 in respect of a charitable or religious institution or endowment included in the list published under s. 6(a), whose annual income exceeds ·Rs. 2 lacs, the Government may, in the case where there is a hereditary trustee, and shall in any other, constitute a Board of trus- tees. ·The respondent applied to be appointed as a trustee of a tempie covered by s. 15(l)(aJ.i but was not appointed. Jnstead, a beard of 9 trustee:s:, was appointed. Tiie High court quashed the appoinment on the ground that the authorities under the Act exercise quasi-judicial functions and that the order appointing the Board was not a speaking order. Allowing the appeal to this Court, HELD : ( 1) The- tests for detenuining whether a decision is administrative or quasi-judicial are: (a) there must be a /is,- (b) the opinion of the tribunal should be formed on the objective and not on the subjective ~ntisfaction of the tribunal; and (c} there must be a duty on the tribunal to ai::t judicially. [1938-0] Province of Bonzbay v. K . . ~. Adi'ani & Ors. [1950] 1 S. C.R. 6!1. Shri Radheshyam Khare & Anr. v. Tile State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. [l959J S.C.R. 1440, R. v. Manchester Legal Aid Commi//ee, [1952] (2) Q.B. 413, and Gulfapnlli Nageswara Rao & Ors. v. And/i,ra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation & A11r. [1959] Suppl. 1 S.C.R. 319, referred to: (2) Jn the present case, neither the respondent not any uf those appeinted had a right to be apppinted as a trustee. There was no proposition or· opposi· tion and hence there was no liJ between the parties. Nqr was there any ques- tion of contest between the authority proposing to do the act and the subject opposing it. [196D] (3) Further, none of the other tests is satisfied in this case. The Jegis· lature has left the matter to the discretion of the appointing authority subject to the guidelines laid down in Ss. 15 and 16. Normally the appointing auth· 1.Jrity would exercise his own discretion a!> to who is best fitted to discharge the duties and functions of a trustee. But that is not to say that the appoint· ing authority must set out the reason~ or record a speaking order as te why he has appointed a particular person as a trustee and not somebody etse. The fact that under s. 82 the Commissioner has power of revision in respect of orders passed J:>y his subordinates and the Government, in respect of orders passed by the Commissioner as well as his subordinates. does not in :iny way limit the powers of the appointing authority under s. 15. [176E to 197PJ Con1missioner, H. R. & C. E. v. B. E. V. Venkata'chalapathi, 85 L. W. 349 approved. ·· C!vIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 796 of 1971. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated December 31, 1969 of the Andhra Pradesh High' Court at Hyderabad in Writ Petition No. 366 of 1969. P. Ram Reddy and P. Parameshwararao, for the appellant. A. Subbarao, for the respondent. 192 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1974] J S.C.il.. The Judgment of the Court was delivered. by- ALAGIRISW AMI, J.-This is an appeal by the Stare of Andhra Pradesh against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh holding that the appointment of nine trustees to the Kalahastis- wara Swami Temple in the town of Kalahasti in the Chittoor district of Andhra Pradesh was liable to be quashed on the short ground that th~ impugned order was not a speaking order. For this purpose the Bench relied upon its own judgment in Writ Petition No. 2536 of 1967 that the functionaries under the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966, though administra- tive tribunals, are exercising quasi-judicial functions in appointing non- hereditary trustees. By the time this appeal came up for hearing the period of office of the trustees, whose appointment was challenged by the respondent, was over and the respondent, therefore, contended that the appeal should be dismissed as having become infructuous. On behaU or the State of Andhra Pradesh it was urged
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.