SACHIMANI PAIKRAY Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Choudhury, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioners and submits, on requirement by the registering authority, to produce 'No Objection' certificate, obtained from the Commissioner of Endowments, his clients applied for the same. By impugned judgment dtd. 18/5/2019, the Commissioner of Endowments imposed condition of making fixed deposit to be pledged in favour of the Commissioner and restrictions on dealing with the accruals. He refers to Sec. 1 and 19-A in Odisha Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 to demonstrate that the Legislature mandated control thereby of public religious institutions. He submits, the Commissioner did so on finding his clients had private deity.

(2.) He relies on views taken by two divisions Benches of the Court. firstly, order dtd. 3/3/2020 in W.P.(C) no.29423 of 2019 (Sachimani Paikray and others vs. State of Odisha and another), from where a passage is extracted and reproduced below.

(3.) Ms. Naidu, learned advocate appears on behalf of Commissioner and points out from paragraph 2 in impugned judgment that there is record, petitioners having decided to sell away the case land would deposit the sale profits in any nationalized bank in the name of the deity on long term basis. Interest accrued therefrom will be utilized for daily seba pooja and niti kanti of the deity. On such position taken the Commissioner had directed as done by impugned judgment. Mr. Choudhury in reply submits, that was intention expressed. It could not be converted into conditions imposed.