AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Satyanarayana Raju, J.—This is an application under 226 of the Constitution, for the issue of a w(sic) mandamus, directing the State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Secretary, Social Welfare Department, to forbear from taking action under (sic) and 5 of the Charitable Endowments Act 18(sic).
The facts which have given rise to writ petition may be briefly stated. On 5-6-(sic) a society, called ''Pammulapati Buchi Naidu C(sic) Committee'', with a provisional membership eleven members, was formed with the object promoting education. The Society was registrar under the Societies Registration Act in the (sic)tant Registrar''s Office at Guntur on 10-11-195(sic).
It has started a College at Nidubrole rules and bye-laws framed for the conduct (sic) affairs of the Society provide for the comp(sic) of the Committee, for a Governing Body (sic) is to consist of the President, Vice-President Secretary of the College Committee and members, including two representatives of Andhra University and the Principal of the C(sic).
It has been provided that the Governing shall have full responsibility for the day to day ministration of the College. Among the person made donations to the Society are the petitioner his brother-in-law and several others.
On 4-12-1956 one Prasada Rao, the (sic)dent of the College Committee, and Seshagir one of the members of the Governing Body, petition before the Government of Andhra Pradesh (sic)ging serious defects in the management of the allege. It was therein stated that they had ob(sic)ed the sanction of the Advocate-General of Madras to file a suit under S. 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
They prayed that the Government might take on under S. 4 of the Charitable Endowments of 1890 and under S. 3 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, appoint a Treasurer. The Government forward the petition to the Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, who directed Special Officer to make an enquiry and submit (sic)port.
Accordingly the Special Officer conducted a (sic)iled enquiry. He submitted his report on 2-1-(sic), wherein he recommended that a Treasurer at be appointed under Ss. 4 and 5 of the (sic)itable Endowments Act. The Board of Revenue to whom the report was forwarded, remolded that action might be taken under Ss. 4 or 5.
On 21-4-1957, the Vice Chancellor of the (sic)ra University addressed a communication to Minister for Law and Religious Endowments (sic)fying certain acts of mismanagement on the of the Committee and suggesting that as an relative to the disaffiliation of the College, the Government might appoint a Special Officer to (sic)over the administration of the College.
On 21-6-1957, a Committee of the Syndicate the University, which was appointed to enquire the irregularities in the management of the (sic)ge, drew up an elaborate report, copies of were sent to the Secretary and Corresponding of the College, and to Prasada Rao, President (sic) College Committee.
(sic) his letter dated 20-6-1957, the Deputy (sic)ary to the Government in the Social Welfare (sic)tment, informed the members of the Govern(sic) (sic)ody that a meeting of that body might be (sic)ed immediately and a resolution passed in (sic)ance with the rules and bye-laws, and that application be made to the Government to take under Ss. 4 (1) and 5 (1) of the Charitable Endowments Act for the appointment of a Trea(sic)ties of this communication were sent to the (sic)r of Public Instruction and to the Vice-(sic)llor of the Andhra University. It was also (sic)nicated to the petitioner.
On 4-7-1957, six members of the Govern(sic)dy passed a resolution requesting the Government of Andhra Pradesh to appoint a Trea(sic)nd to frame a scheme for the College under (sic)(1) and 5 (1) of Act VI of 1890. Whether solution can be considered as a valid applied under the Charitable Endowments Act, is the matters in controversy in this Writ peti(sic)d I will deal with it presently.
According to the petitioner, the College Com(sic)met on the evening of the same day and a resolution opposing the appointment of a (sic)er and also removing the President from his (sic) Shortly stated, the petitioner''s case is that (sic)oerties belonging to the institution, namely, (sic)lege, have already vested in the Committee (sic)le of its registration under the Societies (sic)tion Act and there can be no revesting of (sic) property in a Treasurer under the Charitable Endowments Act; and that assuming, however, that the Charitable Endowments Act can be made applicable, there having been no valid application as contemplated by S. 4 or 5 of the Act, the proposed action of the Government is illegal besides being capricious and unreasonable.
In a counter-affidavit filed by the Deputy Secretary to the Government, the material averments made by the petitioner have been denied. It is asserted by him that the proposed action is Valid.
Seshagiri Rao (who was one of the petitioners before the Government for the appointment of a Treasurer) and Prasada Rao have filed an application in this Court to implead them as respondents. They have filed an affidavit controverting the material allegations made by the petitioner. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit reiterating the allegations made by him in his original affidavit.
The contentions of Mr. T. Lakshmiah, learned counsel for the petitioner may be summarised as follows: The provisions of the Charitable Endowments Act cannot be applied to the society. The registration of the society is a final and conclusive act and the provisions of no other statute can be made applicable to the society. There was no valid application before the Government and therefore the proposed action is both unauthorised and unwarranted.
As already stated, the College Committee was registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act (XXI of 1860) in the Office of the Assistant Registrar at Guntur on 10-11-1951. Eleven members affixed their signatures to the memorandum containing the objects of the society and expressed their intention to form themselves into a Society.
Now, what is the legal effect of the registration of a Society? The Societies Registration Act was enacted for the registration of literary and scientific societies and the object of the Act, as stated in the preamble, is to make provision for improving the legal condition of societies established for the promotion, of literature, science, or the fine arts or for the diffusion of useful knowledge, the diffusion of political education, or for charitable purposes.
Under the provisions of the Act any seven or more persons associated for any literary, scientific, or charitable purpose, or for any such purpose as is described in S. 20 may, by subscribing their names to a memorandum of association and filing the same with the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies, form themselves into a society. The memorandum of association is to contain the name of the society, the objects of the society, the names, addresses and occupations of the governors, council, directors, committee, or other governing body to whom, by the rules of the society, the management of its affairs is entrusted.
The property, movable and immovable, belonging to a society may be vested in trustees, and if not so vested, is deemed to be vested for the time being in the governing body of such society, and in all proceedings, civil and criminal, may be described as the property of the governing body of such society by their proper title. Under S. 16 of the Act, the governing body of the society shall be the governors, council, directors, committee, trustees, or other body to whom by the rules and regulations of the society the management of its affairs is entrusted.
Mr. Lakshmayya''s contention is that the society having been registered under the Act and the property of, the College having vested in the Society, the Charitable Endowments Act cannot be invoked.
The Charitable Endowments Act (VI of 1890) was enacted with a view to provide for the vesting and administration of property held in trust for charitable purposes. Section 2 of the Act defined ''charitable purpose'' as including relief of the poor, education, medical relief and the advancement of any other object of general public utility.''
Under S. 3 of the Act, the Central Government may appoint an Officer of the Government by the name of his office to be treasurer of charitable endowments for India, and the Government of any State may appoint an officer of the Govt. by the name of his office to be treasurer of charitable endowments for the State. Section 4 is an important provision and it reads:
Where any property is held or is to be applied in trust fur a charitable purpose, the appropriate Government, if it thinks fit, may, on application made as hereinafter mentioned, and subject to the other provisions of this section, order, by notification in the Official Gazette, that the property be vested in the Treasure of Charitable Endowments an such terms as to the application of the property or the income thereof as may be agreed on between the appropriate Government and the person or persons making the application, and the property shall thereupon so vest accordingly.
Sub-section (4) of S. 4 explains the nature of vesting in the Treasurer:
An order under this section vesting property in a Treasurer of Charitable Endowments shall not require or be deemed to require him to administer the property, or impose or be deemed to impose upon him the duty of a trustee with respect to the administration thereof.
Section 5 provides for an application being made to the Government to settle a scheme for the administration of any property which has been or to be vested in the Treasurer of Charitable Endowments. Section 6 provides tor the mode of applying for vesting orders and schemes. Under S. 8 of the Act it is provided that
a treasurer of Charitable Endowments shall not, as such Treasurer, act in the administration of any trust whereof any of the property is for the time being vested in him under this Act.
Section 10 contains the limitation of functions and powers of a treasurer:
A Treasurer of Charitable Endowments shall always be a sole trustee and shall not, as such treasurer, take or hold any property otherwise than under the provisions of this Act, or subject to those provisions, transfer any property vested in him except in obedience to a decree divesting him of the property, or in compliance with a direction in that behalf issuing from the authority by whose order the property became vested in him.
From a consideration of the above material provisions of the Charitable Endowments Act of 1890, it is clear that an educational purpose is included within the definition of ''charitable purpose''. Therefore, the College Committee comes within the ambit of the definition contained in S. 2 of the Charitable Endowments Act. So much is conceded. The vesting of property in a treasurer under the Act applies to two categories of cases;
(1) Where any property is held trust for charitable purpose; and
(2) Where property is to be applied in (sic) for a charitable purpose. There is no difficulty in reaching the concision in this case that the property held by College Committee for an educational purpose which is included in the expression ''charitable purpose'', can be the subject-matter of vesting it treasurer, provided the other conditions prescribe by the Act are complied with.
Where in a given case those prescribed conditions are satisfied, it is open to the State Government, if it thinks fit, to direct that the property the endowment be vested in a treasurer. The of the expression if it thinks fit'' shows that matter is left to the subjective satisfaction of appropriate Government to appoint a Treasure.
Assuming that the Government is satisfied the conditions for the exercise of their discre(sic) under the Charitable Endowments Act exis(sic) there, as contended by the learned counsel for petitioner, any prohibition in the Act from a(sic)ing its provisions to a society registered under Societies Registration Act? The Charitable Endowments Act itself does not contain any reserved nor does it make any exception with regar(sic) registered societies.
Mr. Lakshmayya has contended that property is vested in a registered society, cannot be a second vesting in a treasurer applied under the provisions of the Charitable Endowments Act. In support of this contention he principally relied upon an American decision in Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Wood (1819) 4 Law Ed 629 (A).
The facts therein were that one Dr. Whe(sic) founded a charity, on funds owned and pro(sic) by himself. He made a will devising this pre(sic) in trust to continue the existence and uses c(sic) school, and appointed trustees, & while doing was invited to fix his school permanently in Hampshire and to extend the design of it t(sic) education of the youth of that province.
Before he removed his school and accord this invitation, he applied for a charter which granted to the persons whom he named an pointed viz.; the persons whom he had already pointed to be future trustees of his charity (sic) will. The charter, or letters patent, then pr(sic)ed to create such a corporation, and to appo(sic) persons to constitute it by the name of the tees of Dartmouth College" to have perpetual once, as such corporation, and with power the and dispose of lands and goods, for the use College, with all the powers of corporations.
After the institution had existed for over years, the Legislature of New Hampshire pass Act making the 12 trustees appointed under charter, and 9 other individuals to be appeal by the Governor and Council, a corporation new name; and to this new corporation tran(sic) all the property, rights, powers, liberties and leges of the old corporation.
A further Act passed by the Legislature provision for executing the objects of the true the last Act authorised the treasurer to reta(sic) hold their property against their will. It (sic) that corporation established for purposes of charity or for education generally, did not (sic) per se a public corporation liable to the of the legislature.
The learned Judges held that the Act Legislature of New Hampshire was repug (sic) Constitution of the United States and that therefore the Act in question was not valid. They made the following observations at page 659:
There can be no reason for implying in a (sic)arter, given for a valuable consideration, a power which is riot only not expressed, but is in direct (sic)ntradiction to its express stipulations.
From the fact, then, that a charter of incorporation has been granted, nothing can be inferred which changes the character of the institution, or transfers to the Government any new power over (sic).
The character of civil institutions does not (sic) out of their incorporation, but out of the manner in which they are formed, and the objects (sic) which they are created.
The learned counsel for the petitioner (sic) equated the registration of a society under the (sic) of 1860 to a charter granted by the Crown in our of a corporation. He has further argued (sic)t the registration constitutes a contract between (sic) society and the Government which is an irremeable one and the super imposition of the provided of the Charitable Endowments Act which has result of curtailing the powers of the College committee, would tantamount to a violation of the called charter granted to the Committee in the (sic)pe of its registration under the Act.
The decision proceeded on the particular facts the case, namely; the granting of a charter by Crown in favour of the trustees and it was (sic) that the rights granted by the charter could be curtailed by the Legislature of New Hamp(sic)e.
The basic assumption made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the registration society can be equated to the granting of a (sic) Charter, does not rest on a solid foundation, society registered under the Societies Registration Act is an association of individuals which (sic)es into existence with certain aims and objects.
If it is not registered as a society under the it would have the character of an association (sic)h cannot sue or be sued except in the name (sic)ll the members of the association. The registration of the Society confers on it certain advan(sic)s. The members as well as the Governing Body the Society are not always the same. Even (sic)gh the members of the Society or the Government Body fluctuate from time to time, the identity (sic)e society is sought to be made continuous by (sic) of the provisions of the Societies Registration Act.
The Society continues to exist and to function (sic)ch until its dissolution under the provisions of Act. The properties of the society continue to (sic)ested in the trustees or in the Governing Body (sic)ective of the fact that the members of the (sic)ty for the time being are not the same as they before; nor will be the same thereafter.
By reason of the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, once the society is registered the Registrar, by the filing of the memorandum and certified copy of the rules and regulations the Registrar has certified that the society is (sic)ered under the Act, it enjoys the status of a entity apart from the members constituting (sic)ame and is capable of suing or being sued. But the fact to be noted is that what different a society registered under the Act of 1860 a company incorporated under the Companies (sic) that in the latter case the share-holders of company hold the properties of the company (sic)ir own whereas in the case of a society registered under the Act of 1860, the members of the society or the members of the governing body do not have any proprietary or beneficial interest; to the property the society holds.
Having regard to the fact that the members of the general body or the members of the governing body of the society do not have any proprietary or beneficial interest in the property of the society, it follows that upon its dissolution, they cannot claim any interest in the property of the dissolved society. The Societies Registration Act, therefore, does not create in the members of the registered society any interest other than that of bare trustees. What all the members are entitled to, is the right of management of the properties of the society subject to certain conditions.
As I have already stated, the Charitable Endowments Act, 1890, provided that the conditions specified therein are satisfied, makes provision for the appointment of a treasurer, in whom certain powers are vested. Sub-section (4) of S. 4 contains a clear enunciation of the nature of that vesting. The said provision makes it clear that an order, vesting property in a treasurer shall not require or be deemed to require him to administer the property, or impose or be deemed to impose upon him the duty of a trustee with respect to the administration thereof.
Section 10 of the Charitable Endowments, Act contains a specific limitation of the functions and powers of a treasurer. It says that a Treasurer of Charitable Endowments shall always be a sole trustee, and shall not, as such treasurer, take or hold any property otherwise than under the provisions of the Act, or, subject to those provisions, transfer any property vested in him except in obedience to a decree divesting him of the property, or in compliance with a direction in that behalf issuing from the authority by whose order the property became vested in him.
Having regard to the specific limitation of the functions and powers of treasurer under S. 10 the treasurer shall not take or hold any property. He cannot dispose of property. He is a bare trustee as S. 8 of the Act makes it clear.
The appointment of a treasurer under the Charitable Endowments Act, therefore, does, not result in divesting the Society of its property and in a corresponding vesting of the same in the treasurer. The vesting in the treasurer contemplated by the Act being only for certain specified purposes, there is no transference of any property from the Society to the treasurer.
Mr. Lakshmayya has then contended that there was no valid application as contemplated by Ss. 4 and 5 of the Charitable Endowments Act. This really involves the determination of a question of fact. According to the respondent, six out of eleven members constituting the Governing Body passed a valid resolution requesting the Government to take action under Ss. 4 and 5 of the Charitable Endowments Act.
What is, however, stated by the petitioner is that the College Committee, at a meeting held the same evening, passed a resolution strongly opposing the intervention of the Government by applying the provisions of Ss. 4 and 5 of the Act. It is stated by the petitioner that at this meeting a resolution was also passed removing the President from his office. It is contended by the learned Government Pleader that there was a valid application satisfying the requirements of the Act, before the Government, on which they could initiate proceedings under the Charitable Endowments Act. According to the petitioner, however, there was no valid application. As I have already indicated, this involves the determination of a question of fact which it is not possible to do within the limited scope of an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution.
Section 4 of the Endowments Act provides that the appropriate Government (in this case the State Government) can appoint a treasurer, if it thinks fit, or in other words, it is left to the subjective satisfaction of the Government to find whether the conditions necessary for the exercise of their discretion under that section are satisfied in a given case. If they are satisfied that there was a valid application before them on which they could act and if they think fit to appoint a treasurer, it is not for this court to substitute its opinions for these of the Government.
This Court can and will only interfere if it is alleged and proved that the Government, in taking the decision or in being satisfied that the conditions necessary for the exercise of their power under S. 4 exist, have been swayed by extraneous considerations or that their action has been mala fide. No such allegations have been made in this case and it is not therefore within the competence of this court to pronounce upon the question as to whether the Government should or should not have been satisfied about the necessity for the appointment of a treasurer.
The averments made by the respondent, however, show that the Vice-Chancellor of the Andhra University addressed a communication as early as 1957 to the Minister for law and Religious Endowments, bringing to his notice certain alleged acts of mismanagement on the part of the persons responsible for the administration of the College.
On this the Government moved the Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments who sent the Special Officer to make an enquiry and investigate into the affairs of the institution. That Special Officer, it is not denied, had examined, as witnesses, the members of the governing body and other persons and eventually submitted a report giving, as his opinion, that the circumstances, in which the institution was being managed, required the application of Ss. 4 and 5 of the Endowments Act.
There can be also no controversy about the fact that the Syndicate of the Andhra University appointed a Committee to make an investigation and to submit a report. A copy of this report was sent to the petitioner and the Secretary of the Committee. It cannot be said that the petitioner had no knowledge of the enquiry made by the Special Officer appointed by the Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments and the Committee of the Syndicate of the Andhra University which also went into the matter.
Therefore, there was some factual data before the Government and it is not possible to hold that the Government was swayed by extraneous considerations and indeed that was not the complaint made in this writ petition.
Mr. Lakshmaiah then stated that the letter of the Government dated 20-6-1957 contains an invitation to the governing body to pass a resolution with a threat that failure to take action on the lines suggested, may result in the disaffiliation of the College. It was stated that a threat to disaffiliate the college from the University was a very serious matter and that the governing body in passing the resolution, which it did could not but be affected by the threat.
On a consideration of the material placed b(sic) fore me, I do not, however, find anything wrong in the Government suggesting to the government body to pass a resolution in accordance with the rules and bye-laws and make an application to the Government to take action under Ss. 4 (1) and (1) of the Act. It must have been within the knowledge of the members of the governing body, it was within the knowledge of the Government that a valid application under that Act was a p(sic) condition for the exercise of jurisdiction by the Government and that in the absence of such resolution and application, the Government could not very well take action.
In this connection, it may be noted that it (sic) the President and a member of the governing b(sic) of the college that sent an application to the Government making serious allegations against the p(sic) sons responsible for the management of the in (sic)tution. This application by the President and member of the governing body and the letter the Vice-Chancellor of the University sent to Minister as early as 21-4-1957 resulted in an inquiry being conducted into the allegations of (sic) management and I do not find anything wrong the Government asking the members of the Governing body to make an application under the (sic)vant provisions of the Charitable Endowments for action being taken.
It was, of course, often open to the mem(sic) of the governing body to say that they did want the appointment of a Treasurer. According to the allegations made by the President and member 6 out of the 11 members forming the (sic)erning body passed a resolution supporting appointment of a Treasurer. It is no doubt that this resolution was repudiated by the Committee but under what circumstances this reputation came to be made is not a matter pertinen(sic) the present enquiry.
What should be emphasised however, is there is nothing illegal or improper in the Government asking the governing body to pass a resection and to make an application. The fact this was coupled with an intimation to the governing body that failure to take action on the suggested by the Government might result in disaffiliation of the college, can be indicative of apprehension of the Government that absence (sic)timely action by the Governing Body would (sic) in the consequence of disaffiliation.
I am unable to accede to the contention (sic) learned counsel for the petitioner that the t(sic) resulted in the application.
Mr. Lakshmaiah also contended that the case of this institution, it was not the going body but the Committee that was comp(sic) to pass the resolution or make the application attention has been drawn both by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned government Pleader to certain rules and bye-law the College.
But I do not wish to express an opinion the competency of the governing body to pass resolution or make the application. That (sic) depend upon the nature of the powers con(sic) on the governing body by the Rules and the laws of the Society. It may also be noted that S. 16 of the Societies Registration Act, the going body of the society shall be the directors, committee, trustees, or other body to whom by the and regulations of the society the management its affairs is entrusted.
According to the learned Government Pleader the Governing Body of the society has been e(sic) with the management of the affairs of the Col(sic)e and that the college committee as such had no such powers of management. In support of this (sic)tention, he has relied upon R. 8 of the Rules (sic) bye-laws of the Society. I do not, however, (sic)h to go into this question inasmuch as it is for (sic) Government to satisfy themselves as to whether (sic)re was a valid application under the provisions the Charitable Endowments Act which would (sic) them jurisdiction to appoint a Treasurer as provided under that Act. It is not possible for me to express an opinion the powers of the governing body vis-a-vis the committee in the absence of all the necessary mate(sic) before me.
Mr. Lakshmayya then contended that the (sic)lution passed by the governing body in the (sic)ning was nullified by the resolution passed by committee in the evening. Here we are in the on of fact and it is not possible for me to ad(sic)sate upon this question in an application under Art. 226.
It is stated before me that the Government has not passed final orders with regard to appointment of the Treasurer. There is no (sic)t that the Government would do so after they satisfied with regard to the existence of the petitions necessary for the exercise of their jurisdiction.
There remains the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that if a treasurer is the appointed, the society would cease to hold property and that this is violative of the petitioner''s rights guaranteed under Art. 19(1) (g) and 31 of the Constitution. This contention really (sic) the first of the contentions which has been (sic)y dealt with.
(sic)f what is vested in the College Committee or governing body is a right of management similar, there is no question of the members of the (sic) or the members of the governing body beneficially interested in its property. It necessary follows that by the fact of appointment of (sic)surer, there can be no deprivation of the so(sic) of its rights in property.
The consequence, which would flow on the (sic)tment of a treasurer by the Government the provisions of the Charitable Endowments Act would be that he will take charge of the (sic)ement of the properties held by the society. (sic)is no divesting of the rights of the society properties. As already stated, what all the is deprived of would be right of manage which cannot be equated to any right in the (sic).
(sic) the Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowments v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of (sic) Mutt, 1954 SCJ 335 at p. 352 : (AIR 1954 (sic) 292) (B), with respect to S. 20 of the (sic) Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (sic)51, which describes the powers of the commissioner in respect to religious endowments included power vested in him to pass any orders (sic) be deemed necessary to ensure that such (sic)nents are properly administered, and that come is duly appropriated for the purposes (sic)ch they were founded, which is equally ap(sic) to the present case, their Lordships of the (sic)e Court observed:
(sic)having regard to the fact that the Matadhi occupies the position of a trustee with regard (sic)math, which is a public institution, some of control or supervision over the due ad(sic)tion of the endowments and due appropriat of would be right of manage which cannot be equated to any right in the (sic).
(sic) the Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowments v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of (sic) Mutt, 1954 SCJ 335 at p. 352 : (AIR 1954 (sic) 292) (B), with respect to S. 20 of the (sic) Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (sic)51, which describes the powers of the com(sic)er in respect to religious endowments includ(sic) power vested in him to pass any orders (sic) be deemed necessary to ensure that such (sic)nents are properly administered, and that come is duly appropriated for the purposes (sic)ch they were founded, which is equally ap(sic) to the present case, their Lordships of the (sic)e Court observed:
(sic)having regard to the fact that the Matadhi occupies the position of a trustee with regard (sic)math, which is a public institution, some of control or supervision over the due ad(sic)tion of the endowments and due appropriation their funds is certainly necessary in the interest of the public and we do not think that the provision of this section by itself offends any fundamental right of the Mahant. We do not agree with the High Court that the result of this provision would be to reduce the Mahant to the position of a servant. No doubt the Commissioner is invested with powers to pass orders, but orders can be passed only for the purposes specified in the section and not for interference with the rights of the Mahant." Their Lordships there were dealing with the rights of a Mahant which are certainly more substantial than the rights of a member of the Committee of the Governing body of a society registered under the Act of 1860. I do not think that the appointment of a treasurer and the vesting of the properties in him for the purposes specified in the Charitable Endowments Act would offend the fundamental rights of the petitioner either under Art. 19 or under Art. 31 of the Constitution.
It cannot be denied that the petitioner has no beneficial interest in the property which requires to be protected under either of those Articles.
For all the above reasons, this Writ Petition must fail and is dismissed with costs; Advocate''s fee Rs. 100/-.