SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Rishikul Brahmacharya Ashram Committee
Vs.
State of Uttaranchal
C.A.No.1652 of 1999
(Shivraj V.Patil and B.N.Srikrishna JJ.)
19.11.2004
B. N. Srikrishna, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court dismissing
writ petition of the appellant which had sought the quashing of order No.
1132/sec-9/Five 477/76 Lucknow dated 22.2.1981 and order No.
1486-Sec/9/V-477/76 Lucknow dated 6.3.1981 made by the State Government whereby
the State Government had ordered that the property belonging to the appellant
had vested in a Treasurer of Charitable Endowments, U.P.
2. The appellant was established and registered under the Societies
Registration Act on 27.8.1907. The memorandum of appellant's society, inter
alia, includes revival of the study of ancient Sanskrit language as laid down
in the Hindu scriptures, imparting of such knowledge along with suitable
knowledge of English to students, establishing and maintaining institution for
education on old lines as far as practicable for all Hindu boys, establishing
and maintaining special classes of education for the sons of Purohits at places
of pilgrimage so as to enable them in their after life to satisfactorily
perform all the duties devolving upon them. In addition to these religious and
educational activities, the appellant was also running a Sanskrit Pathshala,
Ayurveda Mahavidyalaya, Karmkand Mahavidyalaya, Jyotish Mahavidyalaya and
Upadesh Mahavidhayala. The appellant was receiving Government grant from the
education department of the State Government and the Central Government. These
grants were stopped sometimes in 1969. Complaints were received by the State
Government that the property of the appellant was being wasted and
maladministered by the persons in charge of the appellant's administration. On
26th December, 1978 a show cause notice was issued by the State Government to
the appellant to show cause as to why the properties belonging to society be
not vested in the Treasurer under Sections 3 and 4 of the Charitable Endowment
Act, as applicable to the State of U.P. (Presently the State of Uttaranchal).
The appellant gave a reply which was not considered satisfactory by the State
Government. Another notice dated 22.2.1981 was issued to the appellant and the
appellant was informed that the State Government had decided to take action
under sections 3 and 4 of the U.P. Act XX of 1950. The appellant disputed that
the factual allegations and contended that the Charitable Endowment Act,
1890 did not apply to it as it was an institution established exclusively
for religious teaching or worship. The State Government did not accept this
contention and passed an order dated 6.3.81 by which the properties of the
appellant were ordered to be vested in the treasurer of Charitable Endowment.
The appellant challenged the validity of the notice issued to it and the final
orders made thereupon. The only ground pressed before the High Court was that
the impugned order of the State Government was not a speaking order as no
reasons had been recorded for passing the order. The learned Additional
Advocate General who appeared for the State Government sought leave of the High
Court for filing a supplementary affidavit for placing all the relevant
material before the Court in order to meet the contention of the appellant that
there was non application of mind to the material facts. Such leave was granted
by the High Court and a detailed counter affidavit was filed and all the
material records produced before the High Court.
3. Relying on the judgment of this Court in Union of India vs. E.G.
Nambudiri, , and the observations made therein, the High Court held that
if the impugned order did not contain any reasons, it was open to the competent
authority to place all the connected materials and the reasons for the order by
adducing evidence before the Court to justify the administrative action. The
High Court considered the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the State
and noticed that serious complainants had been made against the appellants
including one by an MLA. The copy of the audit report placed on record
mentioned various financial irregularities committed by the appellants. There
were suits filed in 1968 and 1971 alleging mismanagement in the affairs of the
appellants Ashram. The manner in which the schools were conducted, and the
manner in which there were financial irregularities committed with respect to
several of the schools, which had become defunct, left no doubt in the mind of
the High Court that the circumstances alleged in the show cause notice were
fully made out. The High Court, therefore, accepted the contention of the State
Government that the property of the appellant was being mis-managed and that
the State Government was justified in passing the order under section 4 of the
U.P. Act 20 of 1950 vesting the properties of the appellants in the Treasurer.
In this view of the matter, the High Court dismissed the petition.
4. The only contention urged before us by the learned counsel for the appellant
is that the appellant is an institution established for a purpose which relates
exclusively to religious teachings or worship, and, therefore, the provisions
of Charitable Endowment Act of 1890 or its extension by U.P. Act 20 of 1950 did
not apply to them.
5. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit before this Court in which,
apart from indicating the details of mis-management of the property, it is
pointed out that the appellant Ashram had obtained financial grants for setting
up five institutions, namely:
1. Sanskrit Pathshala,
2. Ayurveda Mahavidyalaya,
3. Karmkand Mahavidyalaya,
4. Jyotis Mahavidyalaya and
5. Upadesh Mahavidyalaya.
But, the last two were not established and the 1st and 3rd had been closed
before 1969. It was only the Ayurveda Mahavidyalaya which was functioning,
though subject to mis-management as alleged. Considering the functions carried
out by its Ayurvedic Mahavidyalya, the State Government rejected the contention
that the appellant was established for a purpose which was purely religious
and, therefore, did not fall within the ambit of the concerned Act.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant tried to justify the contention by
reference to the declaration made in the Memorandum of Association. We are not
impressed. Whether a given society is established for, and is carrying out, a
purpose purely religious, or whether it is established also for purposes other
than religious, is a question of fact. This issue has been considered on the
basis of the evidence tendered before the appropriate authorities under the Act
after suitable opportunity was given to the appellant to meet the adverse
allegations against it. After such inquiry, the administrative authority has
recorded a finding of fact that the appellant was amenable to the jurisdiction
under the concerned Act. The High Court was justified in declining to interfere
with such a finding. In our view, therefore, no fault can be found with the
impugned judgment of the High Court.
7. In the result, we see no substance in this appeal, which deserves to be
dismissed. The appeal is accordingly dismissed, but with no order as to costs.