PRAGNYADIPTA PANDA Vs. RANJAN KUMAR PANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the order dated 15.1.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 680 of 2013 vide Annexure-6 confirming the order dated 14.11.2012 (Annexure- 5) passed by the learned Addl. Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Cuttack (for short 'the Assistant Commissioner') in O.A. No. 30 of 2011. R.1 and R.2 are the petitioners and the Appellant is the O.P. No. 1 in O.A. No. 30 of 2011 pending before the Assistant Commissioner. In the O.A., R.1 and R.2 have sought for a declaration, inter alia, that they being the hereditary Badapandas of the deity Sri Sri Sarala Thakurani, Jhankada, in the district of Jagatsinghpur are entitled to perform the Badapanda rituals of the deity as well as the emoluments attached thereto. On an interim application of R. 1 and R.2 the learned Assistant Commissioner has passed the impugned order dated 14.11.2012 to the effect that R. 1 and the Appellant shall jointly perform the Badapanda rituals of the deity till disposal of O.A. No. 30 of 2011. Against that order, the appellant has filed Revision Case No. 17 of 2012 under Section 9 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 (for short, 'the Act') before the Commissioner of Endowment, Orissa (for short, 'the Commissioner'). Pending that Revision the Appellant filed the writ petition virtually to stay the operation of the Assistant Commissioner's order dated 14.11.2012 citing the reason that at the time of filing of the Revision the Commissioner was on long leave for which it was not possible on the Appellant's part to obtain an order for staying operation of the impugned interim order. Challenging the legality of the interim order, the Appellant sought for quashing of that order. The learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order vide Annexure-6 observing that since the Assistant Commissioner has made only an interim arrangement allowing both the parties to jointly perform Badapanda rituals till final disposal of the O.A., no interim relief ought to be granted in favour of the appellant. Instead, he has directed that the interim arrangement should be complied with strictly with further direction for expeditious disposal of the Revision Case pending before the Commissioner.

(2.) Admittedly, the Appellant and R.7 on one hand and R.1 and R.2 on the other are two branches of one common ancestor. Appellant's constant stand is that either R.1 and R.2 or the ancestors of their branch have never before performed Badapanda rituals of the deity. He claims that all along it was the ancestors of the Appellant's branch who had been performing the rituals and after the death of Appellant's brother late Bhabani Sankar on 20.10.2011 and Bhabani Sankar's son (R.7) being a minor, the appellant being duly selected by the competent authority to perform Badapanda rituals, has been performing the rituals on behalf of the minor. R.1 and R.2, on the other hand, claim that the ancestors of their branch were the Badapandas of the deity. But, the Appellant's father late Bhagirathi, taking advantage of his position in the family, could take over full charge of the Badapanda rituals completely depriving late Baishnab, father of R.1 and R.2, and, after his demise his son R.1, from performing the Badapanda rituals of the deity. R.1 and R.2 have further admitted that while Appellant's father late Bhagirathi was in full control of Badapanda rituals he introduced the Appellant in the year 2003 to perform the rituals without consulting late Baishnab or his sons the present R.1 and R.2. Further contention made by R.1 and R.2 is that after the sudden death of Bhabani, his younger brother, the present appellant, forcibly started performing the rituals preventing R.1 and R.2 from performing the same.

(3.) Thus, from the pleadings of the parties, it is crystal clear that since long the Appellant's father Bhagirathi had taken over full charge of Badapanda rituals depriving R.1 and his ailing father from performing the rituals and even during the life time of Bhagirathi he introduced his son Bhabani Sankar to perform the rituals and after the death of Bhabani, the present appellant has been performing the rituals: It is also admitted by R.1 and R.2 in the O.A. No. 30 of 2011 that they are prevented from performing the rituals not only by the Appellant but also by the Deity's Trust Board, the Temple Administration and the Hindu Public represented by R.5 and R.6 (arrayed as O.P. Nos. 4 and 5 in the O.A.)