CH KRISHNA MURTY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are the members of the public belonging to Hindu community and representing the inhabitants of Rayagada. They also claim to be the devotees of 'Maa Majhi Ghariani Thakurani Bije Rayagada'. In this writ petition they have assailed the illegal and arbitrary action of the opposite parties appointing non -hereditary trustees of the said deity by order dated 13.02.2004 (Annexure -3) and have prayed to accept the recommendation of the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments -opposite party No. 3.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the deity 'Maa Majhi Ghariani Thakurani Bije Rayagada' is an ancient religious institution which was established by the then ruler of Rayagada in 18th century. Subsequently, the deity was managed by the inhabitants of the locality. Since 1968, the deity has been maintained by a non -hereditary trust board constituted by the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Department. In due course of time, opposite party No. 3 published a notice on 20.10.2003 vide Annexure -2 inviting objections from the general public both by beat of drums as well as affixture of notice in the notice board for reconsidering the names of some persons to be appointed as non -hereditary trustees, and after the period for filing objections was over, he recommended the said names to the Government for approval under Section 27(1) of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 (for short 'the Act'). But, opposite party No. 1 in exercise of its powers under Section 27(1 -a) of the Act, without assigning any reason, rejected the names recommended by opposite party No. 3 and substituted some other names for appointment as non -hereditary trustees by order dated 13.02.2004 (Annexure -3).

(3.) MR . Misra, learned counsel for the petitioners, contends that the proviso to Sub -section (1) of Section 27 of the Act, as inserted by way of amendment by Orissa Act 13 of 2003, prescribes that the Assistant Commissioner shall, before sending any proposal to the State Government for approval, publish a notice in the Notice Board of the concerned religious institution and intimate the general public of the locality by beat of drum, inviting suggestions and abjections on the proposal from all persons affected, to be made within a period of thirty days from the date of such publication, and forward to the State Government the suggestions and objections, if any, received, along with such proposal. Basing upon this proviso, objections were invitited by the Assistant Commissioner, opposite party No. 3. After due publication of notice and receipt of objections, names were recommended by the Assistant Commissioner to the State Government for approval, but the State Government modified the proposal of the Assistant Commissioner and inserted new names in place of the names recommended by the Assistant Commissioner. Mr. Misra submits that the State Government, opposite party No. 1, has no power to modify the names without intimating the general public. Therefore, he contends that the order under the Annexure -3 is illegal and liable to be quashed.