ARJUN CHARAN ROUT Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have challenged the appointment of opp. party Nos. 5 to 9 as Members of the Trust Board of Sri Laxmi Nrusingha Mahaprabhu, Bije at Purba Kachha in Cuttack district under Annexure-6, so also the order of approval of Opp. party No. 5 as President of said Trust Board under Annexure-8.

(2.) As per the writ petition Sri Sri Laxmi Nrusingha Mahaprabhu is a public deity. In I.A. No. 3/72, a scheme was framed (Annexure-1) under Section 42 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred as 'OHRE Act') for smooth management of its affairs and properties attached to it. In Clause (3) of Annexure-1, it has been specifically stipulated that the Institution with its endowments shall be administered by a Board of Trustees, numbering five to be appointed by the Addl. Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Cuttack, which shall hold office for such period, as may be fixed by him not exceeding five years. It has also been specified in clause (9) of the said Scheme that the Executive Officer shall be the ex-officio Secretary of the Trust Board. Trustees are being appointed on the basis of the Scheme under Annexure-1 since 1972. On 30.11.2006, five persons namely, Dhruba Charan Das, Surath Ch. Dikshit, Dhruba Ch. Behera, (opp.party No.9), Gagan Mohanty and Prasant Mohanty were appointed as Trustees for two years. As the term of said Trust Board was going to be expired on 29.11.2008, the petitioner No. 1, in consultation with the Inspector of Endowments, Cuttack, Circle No. II, made an appeal to the General Public for holding a meeting on 17.10.2008 for reconstitution of the new Trust Board. The meeting was held on that date and Arjuna Charan Rout, Aswin Kumar, Chakradhar Panda, Manas Ch. Dikshit and Satya Narayan Diksit were selected for appointment as members of the new Trust Board in presence of the Executive Officer, out of whom, the last two members were sevaks of the aforesaid deity. Accordingly, a resolution was passed under Annexure-2, and was handed over to the Executive Officer for taking appropriate action. Pursuant to Annexure-2, the Executive Officer prepared a Memorandum under Annexure-3. In spite of that Opp. Party No. 3 directed the Inspector of Endowments to submit names of five persons for constituting the new Trust Board and accordingly on 5.11.2008 he (the Inspector of Endowments) published a general notice for recommendation of names office persons by 29.11.2008, under Annexure-4. In fact, no meeting of the General Public was held, but, at the instance of Opp. party Nos. 5 to 9 the Inspector of Endowments submitted a false report to Opp. party No. 3, stating therein that Opp. party No. 5 to 9 had been suggested by the General public to be appointed as members of the new Trust Board, under Annexure-5. Without taking Annexures-2 and 3 into consideration, opp. party No. 3, arbitrarily appointed Opp. parties 5 to 9 as members of the Trust Board under Annexure-6, which was approved by Opp. parties 1 and 2 mechanically.

(3.) It is the further case of the petitioners that while disposing of F.A. No. 12/1952 this Court observed that in view of the undertaking given by the Commissioner of Endowments, at least two persons would be selected to the Trust Board from the entire body of Sevaks of the deity and thereby their interest would be protected. On the basis of said judgment, two of the Sevaks had been appointed as trustees, in the Trust Board previous to the disputed Trust Board. There is no representation of the Sevaks in the disputed Trust Board. Hence, this writ petition. In their Counter Opp. parties 5, 6, 7 and 9 contended that they had been rightly appointed as members of the Trust Board in accordance with the Scheme prepared under Annexure-1.