Justice S Sounthar, while allowing a petition filed by the mutt’s 103rd head, said Section 65 of HR&CE Act, 1959, empowers the commissioner to constitute a body of persons to assist the administration but not appoint a manager/executive officer “to carry on day-to-day administration of the mutt.

“Justice S Sounthar, while allowing a petition filed by the mutt’s 103rd head, said Section 65 of HR&CE Act, 1959, empowers the commissioner to constitute a body of persons to assist the administration but not appoint a manager/executive officer “to carry on day-to-day administration of the mutt.” The enabling Section 58 (2) (d) and 3 (b) of HR&CE Act, 1951, was struck down by the courts and later deleted in 1959 Act, the court pointed out.

“When legislature, in its wisdom, had chosen to delete the provisions in the earlier Act, the commissioner is not entitled to make such appointment while framing the scheme. Therefore the commissioner’s order to continue with the administration of secular affairs of the mutt along with its head is without jurisdiction and clearly repugnant to provisions of the present Act,” the judge said.”