http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  1652 of 1999

PETITIONER: Rishikul Brahmacharya Ashram Committee & Another

RESPONDENT: State of Uttranchal & Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19/11/2004

BENCH: Shivaraj V. Patil & B.N. Srikrishna

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

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. 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 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  Mahavidyalaya.  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 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

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.   

       Relying on the judgment of this Court  in Union of India v.  E.G. Nambudiri, AIR 1991 SC 1216, 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 complaints 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 UP 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.  

       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.   

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.

       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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

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.

       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.