TMI Blog2001 (10) TMI 1146X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gistered under the Andhra Pradesh Charitable Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 (Act 17 of 1966) which Act stood repealed and replaced by reason of Section 155 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions Endowments Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the 1987 Act). A notice dated 24.10.1987 issued by the Joint Commissioner intending to appoint Board of Trustees was the subject matter of the writ petition. 3. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition on the ground that the point involved therein was covered by a decision of this Court in DY COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS v SAIBABA SAMSTHANAM, . 4. In the said decision, relying on or on the basis of the decisions of the Madras High Court in ALL INDIA SAI SAMAJ v DEPUTY COMMR. H.R. C.E., 1967 (2) MLJ 618, as also an unreported decision in Writ Appeal No. 498 of 1967, dated 28.2.1973 it was held that the Endowments Act is not applicable to Sai Mandirs. It was further noticed that a bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 1722 of 1989 dated 5.3.1990 had also approved the decision of the Madras High Court. The correctness of the said decision is in question in this writ appeal. 5. The lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... religious institutions and endowments in the State of Andhra Pradesh. 9. The said Act applies to the whole of the State of Andhra Pradesh. Sub-section (3) of Section 1 reads: It applies to- (a) all public charitable institutions and endowments, whether registered or not, in accordance with the provisions of this Act, other than Wakfs governed by the provisions of the Wakfs Act, 1954. Explanation: In this clause, the expression public charitable institutions and Endowments shall include every charitable institution or endowment the administration of which is for the time being vested in any department of Government, or Civil Court, Zilla Praja Parishad, Municipality or local authority, or any company, society, organisation institution or other person; (b) all Hindu public religious institutions and endowments whether registered or not in accordance with the provisions of this Act. 10. Applicability of the said Act, therefore, can be sub-divided into two parts: (1) public charitable institutions/endowments; and (2) Hindu public religious institutions and endowments. 11. 'Charitable endowments' have been defined in Section 2 (3) to mean: All property ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Section 155 of the 1987 Act, has been repealed but notwithstanding such repeal, the old registration would continue in terms of Sub-section (3) of Section 43 of 1987 Act which reads thus: Notwithstanding anything in Sub-section (1), no application for registration shall be necessary in the case of any institution or endowment which was duly registered and entered in the book of endowments before the commencement of mis Act, under the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious institutions and Endowments Act, 1966. 16. By reason of the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 155 of 1987 Act, the writ petitioner-respondent would thus be deemed to be registered under 1987 Act. 17. Prima facie, therefore, the writ petitioner-respondent itself proceeded on the basis that the 1987 Act is applicable to it or its activities as otherwise there would not have been any occasion for it to get registered. 18. The division Bench of this Court in DY. COMMR. OF ENDOWMENTS v SAIBABA SAMSTHANAM (supra) unfortunately did not notice the explanation appended to Section 1(3) (a) of the Act. The learned Judges proceeded on the basis that the devotees of the Sai Mandir belong to all re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t think it necessary to launch into a discussion of either Dilworth's case or any of the other cases cited. All that is necessary for us to say is this: Legislatures resort to inclusive definitions 1) to enlarge the meaning of words or phrases so as to take in the ordinary, popular and natural sense of the words and also the sense which the statute wishes to attribute to it, 2) to include meanings about which there might be some dispute, or 3) to bring under one nomenclature all transactions possessing certain similar features but going under different names. Depending on the context, in the process of enlarging, the definition may even become exhaustive.... 23. It was further observed: Interpretation must depend on the text and the context. They are the bases of interpretation. One may well say if the text is the texture, context is what gives the colour. Neither can be ignored. Both are important. That interpretation is best which makes the textual interpretation match the contextual. A statute is best interpreted when we know why it was enacted. With this knowledge, the statute must be read, first as a whole and then section by section, clause by clause, phrase by phra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the words of Lord Brarnwell, the words of a statute never should in interpretation be added to or subtracted from, without almost a necessity. 26. In UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. v. DEOKI NANDAN AGGARWAL (supra), the Apex Court has held that the court does not have power to legislate. It held: We are at a loss to understand the reasoning of the learned Judges in reading down the provisions in paragraph 2 in force prior to November 1, 1986 as more than five years and as more than four years in the same paragraph for the period subsequent to November 1, 1986. It is not the duty of the Court either to enlarge the scope of the legislation or the intention of the legislature when the language of the provision is plain and unambiguous. The Court cannot rewrite, recast or reframe the legislation for the very good reason that it has no power to legislate. The power to legislate has not been conferred on the Courts. The Court cannot add words to a statute or read words into it which are not there. Assuming there is a defect or an omission in the words used by the legislature the 'Court could not go to its aid to correct or make up the deficiency- Courts shall decide what the law i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the statutory tribunal itself, although in a given case this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may also take recourse thereof. In EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS (P) LTD. v THE WORKERS, , the Apex Court observed: The High Court undoubtedly has jurisdiction to ask the Industrial Tribunal to stay its hands and to embark upon the preliminary enquiry itself. The jurisdiction of the High Court to adopt this course cannot be, and is indeed not disputed. But would it be proper for the High Court to adopt such a course unless the ends of justice seem to take it necessary to do so? Normally, the questions of fact, though they maybe jurisdictions facts the decision of which depends upon the appreciation of evidence, should be left to be tried by the special Tribunals constituted for that purpose. If and after the Special Tribunals try the preliminary issue in respect of such jurisdictional facts, it would be open to the aggrieved party to take that matter before the High Court by a writ petition and ask for an appropriate writ. Speaking generally, it would not be proper or appropriate that the initial jurisdiction of the Special Tribunal to deal wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e shall make reference. 31. Furthermore, only a notification has been issued proposing to appoint a Board of Trustee in relation to a society which is already registered under the 1966 Act and continues to be registered under the 1987 Act. The writ petitioner-respondent, therefore, at this stage may not be held to be entitled to a declaration: That mandirs of Saibaba of Shiridi are not Hindu Religious Institutions nor a temple as defined in Section 2 (27) of the Act 30/87 and further declare that the provisions of Act No. 30/87 cannot be made applicable in regard to Mandirs I dedicated to Saibaba of Shiridi. 32. In STATE OF U.P. v. SHRI BRAHM DATT SHARMA AND ANR, , it has been held: The High Court was not justified in quashing the show cause notice. When a show cause notice is issued to a Govt. servant under a statutory provision calling upon him to show cause, ordinarily the Govt. servant must place his case before the authority concerned by showing cause and the courts should be reluctant to interfere with the notice at that stage unless the notice is shown to have been issued palpably without any authority of law. The purpose of issuing show cause notice is to afford ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the argument could be accepted. When there arises a dispute as to whether a temple is a public temple or not, basically 'it becomes necessary to decide that question. If S87 is read carefully in its entirety, it will be clear that the Deputy Commissioner exercises quasi-judicial power while holding enquiry and deciding a dispute under Section 87(1). Under Sub-section (3), every decision or the order of the Deputy Commissioner on confirmation by the Commissioner shall be published in the prescribed manner. 35. The submission of Mr. Suryanarayana Murthy to the effect that the decision of this Court in DY. COMMR. OF ENDOWMENTS (supra) having been approved by the apex court in special leave petition, the same shall prevail is not acceptable for the reason stated supra. The merit of the decision of this Court in DY. COMMR. OF ENDOWMENTS has not been considered by the apex court. The apex court merely dismissed the special leave petition. It is now a well settled principle of law that dismissal of special leave petition without assigning any reason by itself would not mean that a law has been declared by the apex court in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. 36. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e by judges in their extra-judicial capacity, like other extra-judicial opinions, are without binding authority. For the fundamental notion is that the law should result from being applied to live issues raised between actual parties and argued on both sides. In the course of his judgment, however, a judge may let fall various observations not precisely relevant to the issue before him. He may for instance illustrate his general reasoning by reference to hypothetical situation and the law which he considers to apply to them. Here of course, since the issue is not one that arises between the parties, full argument by counsel will be lacking, so that it would be unwise to accord the observation equal weight with that given to his actual decision. Or again, having decided the case on one point, the judge may feel it unnecessary to pronounce on the other points raised by the parties, but he may nevertheless want to indicate how he would have decided these points if necessary. Here again we are not given the judge's final decision on a live issue, so that once more it would be unwise to endow it with as much authority as the actual decision. These observations by the way, obiter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 42. A decision, having regard to the aforementioned authoritative pronouncements of the Apex court must, thus, be read in the context what has been rendered. A decision as is well known cannot be read as a statute. The ratio must be culled out from a decision upon reading the judgment in its entirety and not in isolation. It is further well settled that a point which has not been considered in a decision shall not be an authority therefor. 43. The submission of the learned counsel to the effect that the reference itself to a Larger Bench is not maintainable inasmuch as, as indicated hereinbefore, the entire appeal has been referred and irrespective of the reasonings which might have weighed with their Lordships at the time of making the reference to a Larger Bench, this Court is not denied of its power to consider all aspects of the matter particularly when two conflicting division bench decisions of this Court have been brought to our notice. Referring to GOJER BROTHERS PVT. LTD. v RATANLAL, , U.J.S. CHOPRA v STATE OF BOMBAY, , in KUNHAYAMMED v STATE OF KERALA, , it has been held: So far as merger is concerned on principle there is no distinction between an order of reversal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
