KALICHARAN BINDHANI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS, BBSR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Choudhury, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner. He submits, his client is interested administration of the religious institution under the scheme dtd. 9/9/1959. He points out from clause-3 in the scheme that the institution of Shri Khirachora Gopinath with endowments are to be administered by the board of trustees, not exceeding five, including the Mahanta. By impugned memo dtd. 2/1/2023 the Commissioner has appointed seven persons, in deviation from the scheme. He submits further, the present Mahanta does not reside in the temple but is presently residing at Gopibalavpur in Paschim Medinipur, West Bengal.

(2.) Ms. Naidu, learned advocate appears on behalf of the Commissioner and submits, clause-3 in the scheme provided for the absentee previous Mahanta and four others to be trustees. The provision for the absentee previous Mahanta to be made one of the five trustees does not extend to the present Mahanta, who is admittedly residing somewhere in West Bengal. Hence, it became a situation that required exercise of power under Sec. 7 in Odisha Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951, for appointment of interim trust board. Government officials and those retired were appointed. For smooth functioning of the institution the board was expanded to seven members. She submits, the Commissioner had the power to do so, in meeting with the situation arising, inter alia, from the present Mahanta not available and untraceable. Mr. Choudhury submits in reply that the provision for the Mahanta being absent in clause-3 of the scheme should cover the present Mahanta and there cannot be more than five trustees.

(3.) On query from Court Ms. Naidu submits, to avoid confusion in not being able to notice and secure participation in the proceeding by the present Mahanta, the Commissioner did not exercise power to modify the scheme.