DIBYAKANTA DASH Vs. COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. S.P. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Rath, learned counsel appearing for the Commissioner of Endowments.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner in this writ petition is that he is the hereditary trustee -Marfatdar of Sri Hanuman Jew, Sri Astasambhu Mahadev, Maa Parbati, Sri Mangala Thakurani, Sri Maa Tarini. Sri Prinath Dev and Sri Radhakrishna Jew Temple. By order dated 27.8.2002, the Addl. Asst. Commissioner of Endowments, Cuttack has appointed Sri Rabinarayan Patra, Sri Birandra Pratap Swain, Sri Pravajan Pattanaik, Sri Bankim Behari Pattanaik and Sri Chiranjibi Datta as interim non -hereditary trustees of the aforesaid temple under Section 27 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act 1951 for a period of two years from the date of this order. Aggrieved by the said order dated 27.8.2002 passed by the Addl. Asst. Commissioner of Endowments, Cuttack the petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution with a prayer to quash the same.

(3.) IN view of the said submission of Sri Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner, we passed orders on 22.4.2004 calling upon Mr. A.K. Rath, learned counsel for the Endowments to produce the administrative file in which the impugned orders have been passed for the purpose of finding out as to whether any enquiry has been made that the concerned deity does not have a hereditary trustee and further directed that status quo as on date shall be maintained. Pursuant to the said order. Mr. Rath has produced before us the administrative file. Relying on the papers in the said administrative file Mr. Rath submitted that report No. 133, dated 16.6.2000 was furnished by the concerned Inspector of Endowments and the Addl. Asst. Commissioner of Endowments, Cuttack after perusing the said report and other papers in the file has endorsed in the file that he is satisfied that the institution is prima facie a public one without hereditary trustee. According to Mr. Rath, the papers of the administrative file would show that enquiry, in fact, has been conducted and in the enquiry it has been found that although the institution had hereditary trustees earlier, no hereditary trustee was functioning and only thereafter, the Addl. Asst. Commissioner passed the order under Section 27 of the said Act appointing the five non -hereditary trustees by the impugned order dated 27.8.2002. Finally, Mr. Rath submitted that the impugned order was passed for appointing the non -hereditary trustees as far back as on 27.8.2002 and the writ petition challenging the impugned order was filed one and half year thereafter on 27.2.2004. The writ petition, therefore, should be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.