AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.S. Mishra, C.J.—Heard.
This appeal has been preferred, in our opinion, by a busy body, who, in the language of the Supreme Court, is a meddlesome interloper, and has brought some sort of allegations to the notice of the State Government and the State Government has chosen to act upon his representation without any semblance of verification of the allegations and without following any known procedure of law. The allegations of abuse of the position of the hereditary trustee including misappropriation of the income of the charitable trust concerned were treated so casually that without caring who would act in place of the hereditary trustee, the Government ordered for his suspension. Learned single Judge has, though for other reasons, rightly held that the Government has acted without jurisdiction (prima facie, for suspending the Government''s order).
In the instant case, in our opinion, it will be fair if the hereditary trustee is asked to clarify his position and explain to the satisfaction of the competent authority that he has not acted against the interests of the trust and that he has in any manner been involved in misappropriation of any property belonging to the trust, but at the same time the Government, which, in the circumstances, is only acting as a statutory authority and exercising revisional power, is told that it has no such arbitrary power that it can do anything it likes. As a statutory authority it has to act in accordance with the known principles of law and strictly in accordance with and within the bounds of the law which has vested it with the revisional power.
Keeping the above in view, we propose to dispose of the writ petition itself with the directions as follows:
(1) The Commissioner of Endowments is directed to appoint a competent officer to verify the accounts and the functioning of the trust and submit a report to him, if the report reveals any involvement of the hereditary trustee, to issue a notice calling upon him to show cause and after affording opportunity to him to show cause, if any, and after giving adequate opportunity of being heard, pass a speaking order; and
(2) It shall be open to the hereditary trustee, in case the order goes against him, to challenge the same in an appropriate proceeding.
Although it is not necessary, we propose to add to our order that statutory authorities in particular who are given the power to act suo motu, can entertain applications by such individuals who have real interest of the religious endowments in their heart, but before acting upon any such applications, it has to satisfy itself about the genuineness of the applicant and his bona fide for making such an application. The Government by acting arbitrarily without any verification of the antecedents of the applicant and without knowing whether he can be a person interested in the endowment concerned, if applications are entertained and hereditary trustees and others, who have to discharge certain functions, are subjected to enquiries, the action and the proceedings may be held to be mala fide in law.
In the result, the instant appeal and Writ Petition No. 18430 of 1995 are ordered as above and are accordingly disposed of. The order of the Government in Memo. No. 49463/Endts.IV 1/95-1, dated 22-7-1995, impugned in the Writ Petition, is set aside; No costs.