K. Veeraswami, C.J.
1. Sri Deepanayakaswami temple in Nannilam taluk, Tanjavur District is a Jain institution. By a notification of Government dated the 8th October, 1960, the appellant was called upon to show cause why the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, should not be extended to it. A schedule to the notification listed the ground on which the proposal to apply the Act was made. Objections were preferred by the appellant; but they did not find acceptance. The result was that the Act was made applicable to the institution. The Government purported to exercise its power, in this regard, under Section 2(1) of the Act. There is no complaint that the procedure prescribed by the proviso to the sob-section has not been adopted in this case. A petition by the under Art. 226 of the Constitution questioning the validity of the notification failed. Hence this appeal by the trustee.
2. Two points, which were urged before Ramakrishnan J. are reiterated before us. The first is that sub-section(1) of Section 2 confers an arbitrary power, inasmuch as it does not prescribe the criteria with reference to which it should invoke the power. We do not accept this contention as sound. The Act is intended to amend and consolidate the law relating to the administration and governance of Hindu Religious and Charitable Institution and endowments of the State and it applies to all Hindu public religious institutions and endowments with certain exception mentioned. Normally, the expression 'Hindu Religious and Charitable institutions and endowments' would take within its fold also Jain institutions. But the explanation to sub-section(3) of Section 1 excludes such institutions from the purview of the Act. It is in this context we have to approach the place for sub-section(1) of Section 2. While prima facie the Act is not made applicable to Jain institutions and endowments, there may be grounds which make it necessary for application of the Act to such institutions and endowments. The proviso which has to be read with sub-section(1) of Section 1 prescribes a procedure of notifying and giving time for objections and considering the same. That will be a sufficient safeguard. In the instant case, the reasons given in the notification for the proposal to extend the Act to the institutions here in question are that the accounts were not maintained properly, that surplus funds of the temple were not invested in Banks and that temple funds were being utilized for the personal expenses of the trustee. Hardly can it be said that the notification proposing to apply the Act to the institution in the circumstances is arbitrary. We are clear that the institution cannot be regarded as denominational institution either.
3. The next contention which is equally pressed before us is that, where there are two remedies, one general and the other specific as in Section 2(1) of the Act, and one of which is more drastic than the other and no guidance has been given statutorily as to when one or other of the procedure has to be invoked, the power under Section 2(1) is liable to be struck down as arbitrary. We fail to appreciate this contention. There are no two remedies at all given by the statute. All that Section 2(1) contemplates is that the Government may, by notification, extend the provisions of the Act to Jain public religious institutions and endowments. Extension of the Act to such institutions cannot be done by any other remedy. There is no other provision do hors Section 2(1) to make the Act applicable to the institution. This is not, therefore, a case where there are two remedies available.
4. The appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs.
5. Appeal dismissed.