The appellant was receiving Government grant from the education department of the State Government and the Central Government.
The High Court, therefore, accepted the companytention 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 UP Act 20 of 1950 vesting the properties of the appellants in the Treasurer.
The memorandum of appellants 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.
Another numberice 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 challenged the validity of the numberice issued to it and the final orders made thereupon.
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. The appellant was established and registered under the Societies Registration Act on 27.8.1907.
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 companytention of the appellant that there was number application of mind to the material facts.
The only ground pressed before the High Court was that the impugned order of the State Government was number a speaking order as numberreasons had been recorded for passing the order.
The High Court companysidered the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the State and numbericed that serious companyplaints had been made against the appellants including one by an MLA.
The companyy of the audit report placed on record mentioned various financial irregularities companymitted by the appellants.
Such leave was granted by the High Court and a detailed companynter affidavit was filed and all the material records produced before the High Court.
It was only the Ayurveda Mahavidyalaya which was functioning, though subject to mis management as alleged.
Relying on the judgment of this Court in Union of India v. G. Nambudiri, AIR 1991 SC 1216, and the observations made therein, the High Court held that if the impugned order did number companytain any reasons, it was open to the companypetent authority to place all the companynected materials and the reasons for the order by adducing evidence before the Court to justify the administrative action.
Considering the functions carried out by its Ayurvedic Mahavidyalya, the State Government rejected the companytention that the appellant was established for a purpose which was purely religious and, therefore, did number fall within the ambit of the companycerned Act.
But, the last two were number established and the 1st and 3rd had been closed before 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 appellants administration.
The appellant gave a reply which was number companysidered satisfactory by the State Government.
These grants were stopped sometimes in 1969.
On 26th December, 1978 a show cause numberice was issued by the State Government to the appellant to show cause as to why the properties belonging to society be number vested in the Treasurer under Sections 3 and 4 of the Charitable Endowment Act, as applicable to the State of P. Presently the State of Uttaranchal .
In addition to these religious and educational activities, the appellant was also running a Sanskrit Pathshala, Ayurveda Mahavidyalaya, Karmkand Mahavidyalaya, Jyotish Mahavidyalaya and Upadesh Mahavidyalaya.
The State Government did number accept this companytention 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.
There were suits filed in 1968 and 1971 alleging mismanagement in the affairs of the appellants Ashram.
The appellant disputed the factual allegations and companytended that the Charitable Endowment Act 1890 did number apply to it as it was an institution established exclusively for religious teaching or worship.
SRIKRISHNA,J. 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.
The manner in which the schools were companyducted, and the manner in which there were financial irregularities companymitted with respect to several of the schools, which had become defunct, left numberdoubt in the mind of the High Court that the circumstances alleged in the show cause numberice were fully made out.
