RAMANARAYAN SAHOO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged Annexure 7, an order passed by the Law Minister (opposite party No. 2) exercising the powers of the State (opposite party No. 1) remanding the case of disqualification of the hereditary trustee and Mahant of Biranchinarayan Math of Budguda in Ganjam district (opposite party No. 4) for further enquiry by the Commissioner of Endowments (opposite party No. 3).

(2.) The facts of the case are too many, but those relevant have been stated as briefly as possible. On the complaint of some persons the Commissioner of Endowments (opposite party No. 3) inspected the Biranchinarayan Math of Buguda in Ganjam district ('Buguda Math's for short) of which opposite party No. 4 was the hereditary trustee and Mahant. He found serious irregularities and initiated a proceeding under S.35 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') suo motu for disqualification and brought the following charges :

(3.) During pendency of the proceeding, the Commissioner of Endowments (opposite party No. 3) made an arrangement in exercise of powers under S.7 of the Act, suspended opposite party No.4 and appointed an Inspector of Endowments as a fit person or interim trustee to manage the affairs of the Buguda Math. Opposite party No.4 challenged the order in this Court in O.J.C. No. 111 of 1978 but the same was dismissed The proceeding under S.35 of the Act was disposed of by the Commissioner of Endowments (opposite party No. 3) ex parte by order dt/-5-2-1979 and opposite party No. 4 was disqualified for being the hereditary trustee and Mahant of Buguda Math. The Math. The State Government (Opposite Party No. 1) approved the order of the Commissioner of Endowments on 14-9-1979, whereby, opposite party No. 4 ceased to hold the office. Opposite Party No. 4 thereafter preferred an appeal in this Court (M.A. No. 211 of 1979) which was allowed by judgement dt/-21-3-1985 and the case was remanded for fresh enquiry. After making fresh enquiry the Commissioner of Endowments (opposite party No. 3) by order dt/-29-6-1985 (Annexure 2) again disqualified opposite party No. 4 for life from the office of hereditary trustee and Mahant of Buguda Math. The order was approved by the State Government (opposite party No. 1) by order dt/-16-10-1985 (Annexure 3) and so the removal of opposite party No. 4 from office was complete. The order of disqualification was communicated to opposite party No. 4 as would appear from Annexure 4. On receiving the order he did not prefer any appeal to this court as on the previous occasion, but filed a petition before the Law Minister (opposite party No. 2) inter alia contending that the order of approval (Annexure 3) of the State Government was passed behind his back without notice to him in gross violation of the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the order of disqualification should be vacated and he should be reinstated in office. The Law Minister (opposite party No. 2) did not direct service of notice on the petitioners and disposed of the petition by order Annexure 7 vacating the order of the Commissioner of Endowments Annexure 2), as well as the earlier order of approval of the State Government in Annexure 3 and directed re-enquiry into the charges after giving adequate opportunities to the parties to adduce further evidence. Simultaneously he restored opposite party No. 4 to office and directed that he shall manage the affairs and the property of the institution. The order was communicated to the petitioners by a letter (Annexure 5). The petitioners have averred that according to the scheme, more specifically the provisions of S.35 of the Act, once the State Government gave approval to the order of disqualification it became functus officio and in that view of the matter, particularly in the absence of any provision for review, the Law Minister (opposite party No. 2) and for that matter the State Government had absolutely no jurisdiction to vacate the order of approval (Annexure 3) and substitute a new one in its place. While reviewing the earlier order of approval no notice was given to the petitioners affording them a chance of hearing and thereby the principle of natural justice which had actuated the Law Minister (opposite party No. 2) to dispose of the petition of opposite party No. 4 was not complied with. The petitioners have challenged the action of the Law Minister (opposite party No. 2) as mala fide and a fraud for colourable exercise of his powers of the State. Annexure 7 being wholly illegal and without jurisdiction is, therefore, liable to be quashed and Annexures 2 and 3 restored.