BAIKUNTHANATH PATJOSHI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in this writ application have challenged the revisional order passed by the Commissioner of Endowments, Orissa, Bhubaneswar u/s. 9 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act') holding that the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments had no jurisdiction to appoint non-hereditary trustees u/s.27 of the Act in respect of the religious Institution in question.

(2.) The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Bhubaneswar by his order dated 15-3-1988 appointed the petitioners as nonhereditary trustees of the religious institution of Sri Madan Mohan Deb and Sri Radhamohan Deb situated at village Somapur in the District of Puri. After being so appointed the petitioners elected petitioner No. 1 to function as the Managing Trustee which in due course got approval of the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments. The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments (O.P.No.2) issued an order to the Inspector of Endowments, Khurda purporting to be one u/s. 12 read with Section 7 of the Act authorising the latter to enter into the premises of the Institution, make an inventory of the properties, records and funds in presence of some gentlemen of the locality and handover the same to the Managing Trustee and report compliance within a fortnight from the date of receipt of the order (Annexure 1). The present opposite parties claiming the aforesaid institution as a private one preferred a revision (R.C. No. 18/88) before the Commissioner of Endowments, Bhubaneswar u/s. 9 of the Act challenging the legality of the order. It was mainly contended that the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments appointing non-hereditary trustees u/s. 27 of the Act in respect of the said Institution is without jurisdiction inasmuch as there has been no prior determination as to whether the Institution is one having no hereditary trustee. In the revision application it was also contended that the petitioners claim the institution as a private one and there having been no determination as to the nature of the institution before appointing of nonhereditary trustees, the order is liable to be vacated. The Commissioner of Endowments after hearing both parties did not accept the contention of the present opposite party No. 3 that the Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to appoint a non-hereditary trustee. On the other hand, it was held by the Commissioner of Endowments that the Assistant Commissioner in exercise of powers u/s.27 read with S.8-B of the Act could appoint non-hereditary trustees. But while going through the management file the Commissioner of Endowments noticed that the institution in question has been described as a math and is to be managed by the hereditary trustees and, therefore, the Assistant Commissioner could not have appointed non-hereditary trustees u/s. 27 of the Act.

(3.) There appears to be some confusion in the correct interpretation of Section 27 read with Section 6-B of the Act which requires elicidation. Section 27 of the Act reads as follows:-