Sri Kanyaka Parameswari Anna Satram Committee and Others vs Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments and Others

CA Nos. 1340/86, 8535/94 & CA No. 2718/97 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 8437/9.7 (CC-1840/89).

1. Delay condoned and leave granted in the special leave petitioners. Application for intervention is dismissed.

2. The controversy raised in this appeal is covered by the judgment of this Court is Sri Adi Visheshwara of Kashi Vuhwanath Temple, Varanasi and Ors. v. The State of U.P. and Ors. [1997] 3 SCALE 1.

3. In the present case, the appellants - Satram Committee claimed the status of as a denominational temple under Article 26(d) of the Constitution. The High Court has held that they have the denominational status, but, nonetheless, it was negatived on the ground that the Managing Committee would be appointed with non-official and official members under the A.P. Charitable and Religious Institutions Endowment Act. Thus, the appellants claimed the status of a denominational one and the Government has questioned the later direction. Admittedly, the Arya Vysya Community is having as many as 102 gotras. In other words, they are representing as large segment of Hindus worshipping Goddess Matha Kanyakaparameswari. In the above cited case, the claim was that the Hindus who worship God Shiva constitute a denominational section entitled to the benefit of Articles 26(b) and 26(d) of the Constitution. A Bench of three Judges, to which both of us were members, had considered the matter in detail and held that Hindu Worshippers of God Shiva are not a denominational section and, therefore, they are not entitled to the benefit of Articles 26(b) and 26(d) of the Constitution for management of the temples. Following the above ratio, we hold that the Hindu sections of the Arya Vysya Community who worship Goddess Matha Kanyakaparameswari are not denominational section for the purpose of Articles 26(b) and 26(d) of the Constitution. As a consequence, it is an institution covered by the provisions of the Endowments Act Accordingly, they are entitled to be administered in the light of the law laid down by this Court in Pannalal Bansilal Patti and Ors. v. State of A.P. .

4. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.

CA No. 1341/86 5. Following the above ratio, this appeal is allowed. No costs.