ADHIKARI NARAHARI DAS Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ application and the miscellaneous appeal are directed against an order under Section 42 (1) (b) of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 (for short 'the Act'). Both the cases have been heard together and will be governed by this common judgment.

(2.) Petitioner is the hereditary trustee of Raghunath Jew Temple at Dakhyabrahmapur in the district of Cuttack. On the basis of a report dated 2-11975 submitted by the Additional Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, a proceeding under Section 42 (1) (b) of the Act was started by the Commissioner of Endowments and after due enquiry an order was passed on 18-8-1977 recording satisfaction that in the interests of proper administration of the institution a scheme of administration should be settled. Notices were issued to the hereditary trustee and the persons interested to furnish proposals as to how best the scheme should be framed. The proceeding was adjourned to 6-10-1977 for consideration of proposals. On 6-10-1977, counsel for both parties were heard and the proceeding was adjourned to 6-12-1977 for consideration of proposals. On 6-12-1977, the Commissioner passed orders directing the office to frame the scheme "as per draft." On 19-1-1978, a petition was filed by one Baishnab Panda (O. P. No. 4 in O. J. C. here) for appointment of a fit person under Section 42 (5). The proceeding was adjourned to several dates for consideration of the question of making an interim arrangement. In the meantime the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments (Amendment) Ordinance No. 2 of 1978 promulgated by the Governor o? Orissa came into force on 7-6-1978. Under the Ordinance several provisions of the Act were amended. By amendment of Section 42 of the Act the words "the Deputy Commissioner" were substituted for the words "the Commissioner". Consequently the power to frame the scheme was vested on the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments. On 18-9-1978, the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments signed the scheme (vide Annexure 2) and directed its publication in the official gazette.

(3.) Although several grounds had been taken in writ application and the miscellaneous appeal challenging the validity of the scheme, the Ordinance and the provisions of Section 42 of the Act, Mr. S. S. Basu, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner confined his argument to the question of invalidity of the scheme only and did not press the other grounds. His argument was that the Commissioner, of Endowments having held the enquiry under Section 42 (1) (b) of the Act the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments had no jurisdiction to settle the scheme as per Annexure 2.