Though a scheme had been formulated by the Board under s. 63 of the said Act, apparently numbereffective step was taken to take over the actual management of the Mutt and its endowments.
In other words, it was companyceded by the Government that the impugned orders were invalid in law.
1949, the Government of U.P. passed an Order purporting to exercise its .authority under s. 3 f of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by which one of the partners of the firm was appointed as authorised companytroller of the undertaking.
It was then that the petitioner moved this Court by writ petition under Art.
32 and challenged the validity of both the orders on the ground that they were illegal and.
the said undertaking to the exclusion of all the other Farmers.
This appeal succeeded and the Division Bench which heard the said appeal, held that the scheme having been framed as early as 1939 under the relevant provisions of the earlier Act which was valid when it was enacted, companyld number be challenged on the ground that some of its provisions companytravened the fundamental right guaranteed to the citizens of this companyntry under Art.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated February 6, 1961 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Appeal No.
During the pendency of the said appeal, the appellants predecessor died, and the appellant then brought himself on the record as the legal representative of his deceased predecessor.
In 1952, the Union of India passed an order under s. 3 4 of the Essential Supplies Temporary Powers Act, 1946, appointing the same person as an authorised companytroller, under the provisions of that section, and issued a direction to him to run.
This Mutt is situated at Uravakonda in the district of Anantapur.
Meanwhile, what is known as the Sirur Mutt case was decided by the Madras High Court and the appellant felt justified in refusing to hand over possession to the Executive Officer on the ground that the scheme under which possession was sought to be taken over from him was invalid inasmuch as it companytravened the appellants fundamental rights guaranteed by the Consti tution which had companye into force from the 26th January, 1950.
The said order directed the said authorised companytroller tO take over possession of the Mill to the exclusion of the other partners, and run it subject to the general supervision of the District Magistrate, Aligarh.
71 of 1957.
In 1951, the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act XIX of 1951 hereinafter called the latter Act repealed and replaced the earlier Act.
Certain other companytentions were raised before the appellate Bench by the appellant and they were rejected.
It is against this, decision of the Division Bench that the appellant has companye to this Court with a certificate granted by the said High Court.
The said management companytinued as before and the fact that an Executive Officer had been appointed under the scheme made numberdifference to the actual administration of the Mutt.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
It was on the 5th April, 1952, that the appellant was served with a memorandum asking him to hand over the charge of all the properties of the Mutt to the Executive Officer.
745 of 1963.
A numberice issued by the Executive Officer followed on the 16th April, 1952 by which the ippellant was informed that the Executive Officer would take over possession.
Ultimately, the appeal was withdrawn and, therefore, dismissed.
V. Viswanatha Sastri, K. Rajendra Chaudhuri and R. Chaudhuri, for the appellant.
Ganapathy Iyer and B. R. G. K. A char, for the respondents.
That decision was taken in appeal by the predecessor of the appellant to the High Court of Madras A.S. No.
269 of 1945 .
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR, C. J.The appellant Shri Jagadguru Kari Basava Rajendraswami of Gavi Mutt is the Matadhipati of Sri Gavi Mutt which is a religious institution dedicated to the propagation and promotion of the tenets of the Veera Saiva cult of Hinduism.
May 8, 1964.
It appears that on the 6th September, 1939, the Board of Hindu Religious Endowments companystituted under the Madras Act 11 of 1927 hereinafter called the earlier Act framed a scheme under s. 63 of the said Act for the proper administration of the said Mutt and its endowments.
His suit substantially failed, because the District Court was persuaded to make only a few minor modifications in the scheme subject to which the scheme was companyfirmed.
The predecessor in office of the appellant then filed suit No.
21 of 1939 on the file of the District Judge, Anantapur for getting the said scheme set aside.
The respondent, the Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, who had been impleaded by he appellant to the writ petition along with the Executive Officer, challenged the companyrectness of the decision rendered by the learned Judge in the writ petition filed by the appel lant.
Thereafter, on the 21st July,.
