UPALESWARI THAKURANI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order of the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments dated 13.7.1993 appointing a Non -Hereditary Trust Board of Upaleswari Thakurani and Upaleswari Narayani Thakurani in exercise of power Under Section 27 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'') is under challenge in this writ application. The said order has been annexed as Annexure -3 to the writ application.

(2.) THE petitioner's case in nut shell is that an application had been filed by them on 24 -11 -1992 Under Section 41 of the Act to declare them, as the Hereditary Trustees. They also filed an application Under Section 8(2) of the Act praying therein that a sum of Rs. 2,000/ - is being granted to the deity but is going to be disbursed to some Non - Kereditary Trustees likely to be appointed on the pressure of the local M. L. A. and the said sum be kept in abeyance till the application Under Section 41 is disposed of. On 4 -12 -1992, another application was filed praying that no Non -Hereditary Trustees be appointed since at no point of time any such Non -Hereditary Trustees had been appointed, until the Assistant Commissioner disposes of the application Under Section 41. Without disposing of the application filed Under Section 8(2), the Assistant Commissioner passed the impugned order appointing a Non -Hereditary Trust Board represented by opposite parties 4 to 10 for a period of two years. The petitioners then moved the Commissioner of Endowments praying that the order passed Under Section 12 of the Act be recalled or stayed until the petitioners' application Under Section 41 is finally disposed of. No order having been passed thereon, the petitioners approached this Court.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Assistant Commissioner and it has been stated therein that the fact of pendency of an application Under Section 41 had not been brought to the notice of the Assistant Commissioner since the order Under Section 27 is passed on the administrative file and, therefore, the said order cannot be said to be mala fide in any manner. The allegation of exercise of pressure by local M.L.A. has been denied and it has been stated that in a meeting of the villagers in the premises of the institution, the villagers demanded that valuable landed properties belonging to the deities are being wasted and the Sevapuja is being neglected and petitioners are not the Hereditary Trustees but are Sevaits and had been given certain lands for performing the Sevapuja and on being satisfied after due enquiry, the Assistant Commissioner thought it fit to appoint the Non -Hereditary Trust Board. It was also contended that in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court reported in 74 (1993) CLT 969, the Assistant Commissioner has the power to appoint a Non -Heredit3ry Trust Board in respect of the religious institution other than a Math, without prior determination of a dispute Under Section 41 of the Act and consequently, there is no error of law or jurisdiction.