SRINIVAS RAMANUJ DAS Vs. COMMISSIONER HINDU RELIGIOUS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution against the order of the commissioner Hindu Religious Endowments, Orissa, dated the 4 -2 -1956, passed under Section 36 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act 1951 (Orissa Act II of 1952). (hereinafter referred to as the Orissa Act).

(2.) MAHANT Sri Jagannath Ramanuj Das of Dakshina Parswa Math, Puri, died on the 7 -9 -1956. He did not give any intimation to the Endowments Commissioner about the nomination of his successor, as required by Section 39 of the Orissa Act. It is admitted that the said Math is a Maurasi Math following the Sri Sampradaya of the famous Vaishnavite Saint, Sri Ramanuja. Soon after the death of the said Mahant, the Endowments Commissioner purporting to act under Section 36 of the Act invited by public notice claims about the successor of the said Mahant. The petitioner was the only claimant before the Commissioner. He gave an intimation to the Commissioner, on the 10 -10 -1956, to the effect that he was the duly constituted and initiated Chela of the late Mahant, Sri Jagannath Ramanuja Das and that he succeeded to the Ma -hantship soon after the death of the last Mahant. He also stated that he duly performed the Sradh and Sudhi Kriya of the deceased Mahant and was functioning as the Mahant of the paid Math. The Endowments Commissioner however, by a proclamation invited all persons interested in the Math to give evidence before him as to who was the true successor or the deceased Mahant. He examined witnesses on the 15th and 16th November 1956 and held that the evidence adduced before him did not show that the petitioner was the duly initiated Chela of the said Mahant. He believed the evidence of the witnesses to the effect that the Upanayan of the petitioner was done by the deceased Mahant and that he performed his Kriyas, but an the petitioner was admittedly the brother's son of the deceased Mahant he thought that the performance of these ceremonies alone would not suffice to show that he was the duly appointed Chela. In coming to this conclusion he was very much influenced by the absence of evidence to show that any Biraja Homa was performed when the petitioner was said to have been initiated as Chela, or that Kanthi and Kowpin were given to him. He did not accept the evidence of the witnesses about the imprinting of the marks of Sankha and Chakra on the arms of the petitioner with heated dyes, by the deceased Mahant.

(3.) THE relevant provisions of Sub -section (1) of Section 36 of the Orissa Act (omitting immaterial portions) are as follows: