Alhari Narayana Swamy vs Commissioner, Endowments Department, Tilak Road, Hyderabad. and others

The petitioner is the hereditary trustee of Sri. Lakshmi Venkateshwara Swamy Temple situate at Manyamkonda, Mahabubnagar District. It is stated at the time of hearing by the learned Counsel for the parties and the learned Government Pleader for Endowments that Trust Board in respect of the temple is not yet constituted. The Executive Officer of the temple who is arrayed as the 4th respondent to the writ petition has been operating the bank accounts of the temple. In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Executive Officer of the temple by himself, refusing to continue the earlier practice of the bank accounts of the temple being operated jointly by the petitioner and the Executive Officer as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and for a consequential direction to the Executive Officer to continue the operation of the bank accounts of the temple jointly by the petitioner and himself.

The relevant provisions of subsection (5) of Section 29 of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ''the Act'') are extracted here below:

"(5)(a) The Executive Officer appointed under this section shall be under the administrative control of, the trustee of the institution or endowment and shall be responsible for carrying out all lawful directions issued by such trustee, from time to time;

(b) The Executive Officer shall, subject to such restrictions as may be imposed by the Government-

(i) be responsible for the proper maintenance and custody of all the records, accounts and other documents and of all the jewels, valuables, moneys, funds and other properties of the institution or endowment;

(ii) arrange for the proper collection of income and for incurring of expenditure;

(iii) sue or be sued by the name of the institution or endowment in all legal proceedings;

Provided that any legal proceeding pending immediately before the commencement of this Act, by or against an institution or endowment in which any person other than an Executive Officer is suing or being sued shall not be affected;

(iv) deposit all moneys received by the institution or endowment in such bank or treasury as may be prescribed and be entitled to sign all orders or cheques against such moneys:

Provided that such deposit may be made in the treasury if the rate of interest offered by it is higher than that of any bank".

The language employed in Sub-clause (iv) of Clause (b) of sub-section (5) of Section 29 is clear, precise, unambiguous and plain. It does not admit more than one meaning. The clear mandate in clause (b) of sub-section (5) of Section 29 is that the Executive Officer shall deposit all moneys received by the institution or endowments in such bank or treasury as may be prescribed. Of course, this power granted to the Executive Officer is subject to restriction that may be imposed by the Government. Since the statute has mandated that the Executive Officer shall deposit all moneys received by the institution or endowments in bank and he is entitled to sign all orders or cheques against such moneys, it goes without saying that the Executive Officer is fully armed with the power to open and maintain bank account in respect of the moneys received by the institutions or endowments, as the case may be. When this is the plain meaning of the provisions of subsection (5)(b)(iv), learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would strenuously contend that keeping in mind the provisions of subsection (5) (a) read with the decisions of the Supreme Court in Pannalal Bansilal Patil and others etc. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another, and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 4-3-1997 in Alhari Narayana Swamy v. the Commissioner, Endowments Department & others, (Writ Petition No. 3140 of 1997), it should be held that the hereditary trustee has the power to maintain and operate the bank accounts of the temple along with the Executive Officer. Elaborating this submission, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would specifically drawn the attention of the Court to the mandate contained in sub-section (5) (a) that the Executive Officer "shall be under the administrative control of the trustee of the institution or endowment" and would point out that "administrative control'''' to be exercised by the trustee of the institution or the endowment should necessarily include the control over, the maintenance and operation of the bank accounts in respect of the temple funds also, and if that is so, the provisions of sub-section (5)(b)(iv) should be interpreted in such a way as to recognise the right and power of the hereditary trustee to manage and operate the bank accounts also. That is the only argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is not acceptable to the Court. If the interpretation suggested by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is to be accepted, the Court would be modifying the statute. There is absolutely no scope for applying the "mischief rule". As pointed out supra, the language employed in sub-clause (iv)(b) of sub-section (5) is quite clear, plain, unambiguous and it does not admit more than one meaning, and it clearly mandates that the Executive Officer shall deposit the moneys received by the institution or endowment in the banks or treasury, as the case may be and he is entitled to sign all orders and cheques against such moneys. Although, learned Counsel for the petitioner, in quite elaboration, would highlight the danger of granting exclusive power to open and maintain the bank accounts on behalf of the temples to the Executive Officer, the scope for abuse of power cannot be a relevant consideration in interpreting the provision of the statute. It is not for the Court to question the wisdom of the Legislature in enacting a particular provision. The legislature in its wisdom, has thought it proper and appropriate to confer the power of opening and maintaining bank accounts on behalf of the institutions and endowments on the Executive Officer. If the Legislature wanted to confer this power of opening and maintaining bank accounts on behalf of the institution and endowments jointly on the trustee and the Executive Officer, there was absolutely no difficulty for the Legislature to enact such provision in Clause (b) of subsection (5). Secondly, when Section 5(a) states that the Executive Officer shall be under the administrative control of the trustee, the general administrative control that is to be exercised by the trustee shall always be subject to the other specific provisions of the Act. "Administrative Control" conferred on the trustee under sub-section 5(a) is a general power and that power has to be understood and interpreted in the context of special provisions made in Clause (b) (iv) of subsection (5). In other words, in juxta-position to the provisions of clause (b) (iv), the provisions in clause (a) should be treated as general, and provisions of clause (b) as specific.

The observations made by the Supreme Court in Pannalal''s case (1) in paragraph-26 to the effect that the trustee is entitled to have "freedom of management" or the observation of the division bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 3140 of 1997 decided on 4-3-1997 are in no way helpful to the petitioner to contend that he is entitled to maintain and operate bank accounts on behalf of the temple jointly with the Executive Officer. The Division Bench of this Court was not called upon to consider the right of the trustee to open and maintain the bank accounts on behalf of the temple in the above writ petition.

In the result, the writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.