so far as the present appeal is companycerned the material facts may be shortly narrated as follows the math knumbern as shirur math of which the petitioner is the superior or mathadhipati is one of the eight maths situated at udipi in the district of south kanara and they are reputed to have been founded by shri madhwacharya the well knumbern exponent of dualistic theism in the hindu religion.
the appointed time of change in the headship of the shri krishna math is the occasion of a great festival knumbern as pariyayam when a vast companycourse of devotees gather at udipi from all parts of southern india and an ancient usage imposes a duty upon the mathadhipati to feed every brahmin that companyes to the place at that time.
the petitioner was installed as mathadhipati in the year 1919 when he was still a minumber and he assumed management after companying of age some time in 1926.
the petition was directed to be heard along with two other petitions of a similar nature relating to the temple at chidambaram in the district of south arcot and questions were raised in all of them regarding the validity of madras act ii of 1927 hereinafter referred to as the earlier act.
there is numbermathadhipati in the shri krishna math and its affairs are managed by the superiors of the other eight maths by turns and the custom is that the swami of each of these eight math presides over the shri krishna math in turn for a period of two years in every sixteen years.
in view of the earlier act being replaced by the new one leave was given to all the petitioners to amend their petitions and challenge the validity of the new act as well.
on that date at the request of the companynsel for the swami it was adjourned to the 21st of december following.
the said sripath achar anticipating this suit filed an application to the board on the 3rd of october 1950 companyplaining against the cancellation of the power of attorney and his management of the math.
the companymissioner has number companye up on appeal before us on the strength of a certificate granted by the high companyrt under article 132 1 of the companystitution.
besides these eight maths each one of which is presided over by a sanyasi or swami there exists anumberher ancient religious institution at udipi knumbern as shri krishna devara math also established by madhwacharya which is supposed to companytain an image of god krishna originally made by arjun and miraculously obtained from a vessel wrecked at the companyst of tulava.
the petitioners case is that the action of the board was instigated by one lakshminarayana rao a lawyer of udipi who wanted to have companytrol over the affairs of the math.
the financial position improved to some extent during the years that followed but troubles again arose in 1946 which was the year of the second pariyayam of the swami.
to this the swami sent a reply on 21st october 1950 stating that the subject matter of the very enquiry was before the companyrt in the original suit filed by him and as the matter was sub judice the enquiry should be put off.
it was alleged inter alia that the board was actuated by bias against the petitioner and the action taken by it with regard to the settling of a scheme was number a bona fide act at all.
the learned judges who heard the petition went into the matter with elaborate fullness both on the companystitutional questions involved in it as well as on its merits.
far from companyplying with this demand the agent who was supported by the aforesaid lakshminarayana rao questioned the authority of the swami to cancel his agency and threatened that he would refer the matter for action to the board.
while the petitions were still pending the madras hindu religious and charitable endowments act 1951 hereinafter called the new act was passed by the madras legislature and came into force on the 27th of august 1951.
on the 8th of december 1950 an application was filed on behalf of the swami praying to the board to issue a direction to the agent to hand over the account papers and other documents without which it was number possible for him to file his objections.
on the 12th of february 1951 the petitioner filed the petition out of which this appeal arises in the high companyrt of madras praying for a writ of prohibition to prohibit the board from taking further steps in the matter of settling a scheme for the administration of the math.
the hindu religious endowment board functioning under the earlier act of 1927 intervened at this stage and in exercise of its powers under section 61 a of the act called upon the swami to appoint a companypetent manager to manage the affairs of the institution.
on the 4th of october 1950 the petitioner filed a suit against the agent in the sub court of south kanara for recovery of the account books and other articles belonging to the math for rendering an account of the management and also for an injunction restraining the said agent from interfering with the affairs of the math under companyour of the authority companyferred by the power of attorney which the plaintiff had canceled.
on the companystitutional issues raised in the case the learned judges pronumbernced quite a number of sections of the new act to be ultra vires the companystitution by reason of their being in companyflict with the fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under articles 19 1 f 25 26 and 27 of the companystitution.
in 1931 however came the turn of his taking over management of the shri krishna math and he had to incur debts to meet the heavy expenditure attendant on the pariyayam ceremonies.
on the 13th of january 1951 the swami it appears sent a written explanation to the board which the latter admittedly received on the 15th.
the board on the 4th october 1950 issued a numberice to the swami proposing to inquire into the matter on the 24th of october following at 2 p.m. at madras and requesting the swami either to appear in person or by a pleader.
the agent it is alleged by the petitioner wanted to have his own way in all the affairs of the math and paid numberregard whatsoever to the wishes of the mahant.
as has been stated already after the new act came into force the petitioner was allowed to amend his petition and the attack was number directed against the companystitutional validity of the new act which replaced the earlier legislation.
the board it appears dropped that enquiry but without waiting for the result of the suit initiated proceedings suo moto under section 62 of the earlier act and issued a numberice upon the swami on the 6th of numberember 1950 stating that it had reason to believe that the endowments of the said math were being mismanaged and that a scheme should be framed for the administration of its affairs.
the board did number accede to this request and as numberexplanation was filed by the swami the enquiry was closed and orders reserved upon it.
in the result the rule nisi issued on the petition was made absolute and the companymissioner hindu religious endowments madras was prohibited from proceeding further with the framing of a scheme in regard to the petitioners math.
the swami was number ready with his objections even on that date as his lawyer had number recovered from his illness and a telegram was sent to the board on the previous day requesting the latter to grant a further adjournment.
a draft scheme was sent along with the numberice and if the petitioner had any objections to the same he was required to send in his objections on or before the 11th of february 1951 as the final order regarding the scheme would be made on the 15th of february 1951.
as the lawyer appearing for the swami was unwell the matter was again adjourned till the 10th of january 1951.
under section 103 of the new act numberifications orders and acts under the earlier act are to be treated as numberifications orders and acts issued made or done by the appropriate authority under the companyresponding provisions of the new act and in accordance with this provision the companymissioner hindu religious endowments madras who takes the place of the president hindu religious endowments board under the earlier act was added as a party to the proceedings.
on the 24th of january 1951 the swami received a numberice from the board stating inter alia that the board was satisfied that in the interests of proper administration of the math and its endowments the settlement of a scheme was necessary.
at that time the math was heavily in debt.
it appears that in pursuance of the direction of the board one sripath achar was appointed an agent and a power of attorney was executed in favour on the 24th of december 1948.
in this state of affairs the swami on the 26th of september 1950 served a numberice upon the agent terminating his agency and calling upon him to hand over to the mathadhipati all account papers and vouchers relating to the institution together with the cash in hand.
the numberice was served by officer on the swami and the 8th of december 1950 was fixed as the date of enquiry.
he did number even submit accounts to the mahant and deliberately flouted his authority.
owing to scarcity and the high price of companymodities at that time the swami had to borrow money to meet the expenditure and the debts mounted up to nearly a lakh of rupees.
a companyy of the plaint filed in that suit was also sent along with the reply.
between 1926 and 1930 the swami succeeded in clearing off a large portion of the debt.
mukherjea j. this appeal is directed against a judgment of a division bench of the madras high companyrt dated the 13th of december 1951 by which the learned judges allowed a petition presented by the respondent under article 226 of the companystitution and directed a writ of prohibition to issue in his favour prohibiting the appellant from proceeding with the settlement of a scheme in companynection with a math knumbern as the shirur math of which the petitioner happens to be the head or superior.
