Misc. Case No. 23 of 2007 · The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 3694 of 2025 Mahanta Kausal Kishore Das … Appellant Mr. S. S. Rao, Senior Advocate Commissioner The Endowments, Bhubaneswar and Ors. of Odisha, … Opposite Parties Ms. P. Naidu,Advocate for Endowment Authorities Mr. P. Mohanty, Sr. Advocate for O.P. No.5 Mr. A. Mishra, Advocate for O.P. Nos. 2 and 4 Mr. A. Das, Advocate for O.P. Nos. 8, 9 and 10 CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Date of Judgment: 16.05.2025 Chittaranjan Dash, J.: 1. By means of this Writ Petition, the Appellant has challenged the order dated 10.01.2025 passed by the Learned Commissioner of Endowments, Bhubaneswar, in Misc. Case No. 23 of 2007, arising out of O.A. No. 30 of 2001, whereby the Commissioner allowed an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, originally filed by Nityananda Muni and later pursued by O.P. Nos. 2 to 4, after their transposition. WP(C) No. 3694 of 2025 Page 1 of 18 2. The background facts of the case is that the present petitioner, Mahanta Kaushal Kishore Das, sought recognition as the Hereditary Trustee of three temples, namely, Sri Sri Laxminarayan Temple, Sri Sri Radhakrishna Swamy Temple, and Sri Sri Radha Binod Swamy Temple, situated in the Seragada region of Ganjam district. His claim was based on a will dated 24.05.1990, executed by his predecessor, Mahant Gobardhan Das, who passed away on 12.06.1990. The petition was allowed ex parte on 09.10.2007 in OA No. 30 of 2001, declaring the petitioner as the rightful successor. Subsequent to the ex parte order dated 09.10.2007 passed in OA No. 30 of 2001, three separate applications, i.e. Misc. Case Nos. 22, 23, and 24 of 2007 were filed under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC seeking to set aside the said order. While Misc. Case Nos. 22 and 24, filed by Nirmal Chandra Panda and Abadhut Kishore Chandra Baba respectively, were dismissed by the Commissioner on 02.05.2008, Misc. Case No. 23/2007 was filed by one Nityananda Muni on the ground that he was prevented from contesting the original proceedings due to illness. However, on 28.12.2021, Nityananda Muni filed a memo to withdraw his petition, which was duly accepted by the Commissioner, thereby concluding the matter as closed. Despite the withdrawal and closure of the case, O.P. Nos. 2 to 4, who had been impleaded only much later on 22.03.2014 and were permitted to participate in the proceedings from that stage onward, objected to the withdrawal and filed an application seeking to be transposed as Petitioners in place of the original applicant. The Commissioner allowed their prayer, and thereafter permitted them to amend the withdrawn petition, originally based solely on personal WP(C) No. 3694 of 2025 Page 2 of 18 illness to now include new grounds, particularly alleging that the original ex parte order had been obtained by fraud. These
Legal Reasoning
developments were challenged by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 7381 of 2022, which was dismissed on 05.07.2023 by this Court with liberty to raise all contentions before the Commissioner. The petitioner’s subsequent SLP against that order was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 16.10.2023, with the liberty to raise those contentions at the appropriate forum. Ultimately, by order dated 10.01.2025, the learned Commissioner allowed the amended petition and set aside the original order dated 09.10.2007, prompting the petitioner to file the present writ petition assailing the validity and jurisdiction of that decision. 3.
Legal Reasoning
Mr. S. S. Rao, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Petitioner contended that the learned Commissioner erred in law and jurisdiction in allowing Misc. Case No. 23 of 2007 at the instance of O.P. Nos. 2 to 4, as they lacked locus standi to pursue the application. It was argued that the ex parte order dated 09.10.2007, passed in OA No. 30 of 2001, had attained finality, and the attempt to reopen it after a considerable lapse of time especially by parties who were not originally impleaded amounts to an abuse of the process. Mr. Rao further submitted that the withdrawal of the application by Nityananda Muni, the original plaintiff in Misc. Case No. 23 of 2007 rendered the proceeding infructuous, and that the Commissioner had become functus officio thereafter. He urged that the Commissioner improperly permitted amendment of the petition to introduce allegations of fraud without foundation in the original pleadings and without affording due opportunity to the Petitioner to WP(C) No. 3694 of 2025 Page 3 of 18 rebut the same. Mr. Rao contends that the finding of procedural impropriety and suppression was unfounded and unsupported by cogent evidence, and that the Commissioner’s decision effectively unsettled a long-standing appointment under the Section 30 of the OHRE Act without following the due safeguards of law. 4. Ms. P. Naidu, learned counsel appearing for Endowment Authorities (O.P. No.1), justifies the impugned order by asserting that O.P. Nos. 2 to 4 being the Hindu public were, therefore, legally competent to seek redress under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. She further submits that the ex parte order dated 09.10.2007 had been passed without proper service of notice and as a result denying interested persons including the applicants an opportunity to contest the claim for hereditary trusteeship. Ms. Naidu contends that once such procedural impropriety was brought to light, the Commissioner was well within his jurisdiction to permit amendment of the pending application and to examine the claim of the present opposite parties. She further argued that the Commissioner, being the statutory authority under the OHRE Act entrusted with oversight of public religious endowments, had a duty to ensure that recognition as a hereditary trustee is conferred only after due compliance with law, and that the relief granted in the impugned order was both necessary and proportionate to safeguard public interest in the temple administration. 5. Mr. A. Mishra, Advocate for O.P. Nos. 2 and 4 argues that the O.P. Nos. 2 to 4 are legitimate persons having interest under the OHRE Act and had every right to challenge the ex parte order dated 09.10.2007, which had been passed without issuing proper notice or WP(C) No. 3694 of 2025 Page 4 of 18 public proclamation. He contends that their non-involvement in the original OA No. 30 of 2001 was not due to negligence but due to deliberate suppression by the Petitioner, who failed to ensure public notice despite the matter concerning public religious institutions. Mr. Mishra emphasising their local residence and longstanding connection with the temples, asserts that the ex parte order had conferred hereditary trusteeship improperly, without compliance with statutory safeguards. He too further justifies the amendment of the application as necessary to bring on record the allegation of fraud, which came to light only upon closer inspection of the record. Mr. Mishra urges that the objective of O.P. Nos. 2 to 4 has always been to protect the interest of the deity and the Hindu public, and the Commissioner’s order was in consonance with law and served the ends of justice. 6. Mr. P. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for O.P. No.5, submits that he fully concurs with the submissions made on behalf of the Petitioner. He adopted similar arguments advanced by Mr. S. S. Rao, learned Senior Counsel, and stated that the impugned order dated 20.03.2025 is unsustainable for the same reasons, on grounds of procedural impropriety and violation of natural justice. 7. From the record, it is seen that the petitioner claimed succession through an unregistered will dated 24.05.1990 executed by his spiritual predecessor, Mahant Gobardhan Das, who had passed away on 12.06.1990. The Petitioner’s claim was unopposed during the later stages of the proceeding, as several objectors, including Nityananda Muni and others who had been impleaded, did not file written statements and were ultimately set ex parte. On 09.10.2007, WP(C) No. 3694 of 2025 Page 5 of 18 the learned Commissioner of Endowments allowed the petition ex parte, holding that the petitioner was entitled to succeed as the Hereditary Trustee on the basis of the will and customary succession, and formally recognised him as such in respect of all three institutions. The Commissioner also noted that the will, though unregistered, was supported by witnesses and unrebutted by any material, particularly in light of the absence of contest. Aggrieved by the said order, O.P. Nos. 2 to 4 – namely Bipra Charan Badtia, Raghunath Panigrahi, and Harihar Das filed Misc. Case No. 23 of 2007 under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, contending that they had not been impleaded in OA No. 30 of 2001 and were thereby denied an opportunity of being heard despite being persons having interest in the temple. Their core grievance was that the ex parte order had been obtained without proper notice, without due publication, and in breach of principles of natural justice. In that application, O.P. Nos. 5 to 7 – Balakrishna Dakua, Nirmal Kumar Panda, and Niranjan Gouda were impleaded as respondents. Amongst them, O.P. No. 6, Nirmal Kumar Panda, had earlier independently filed Misc. Case No. 22 of 2007 under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, which was dismissed by the Commissioner on 02.05.2008. O.Ps. 5 and 7, however, did not file any separate application and entered the record only as opposite parties in Misc. Case No. 23 of 2007. During the pendency of Misc. Case No. 23 of 2007, on 28.12.2021, Nityananda Muni filed a memo to withdraw Misc. Case No. 23/2007. Despite objections from O.P. Nos.2 to 4, the Commissioner accepted the withdrawal, effectively disposing of the application. However, O.P. Nos. 2 to 4 then moved an application WP(C) No. 3694 of 2025 Page 6 of 18 seeking to be transposed as petitioners in place of Nityananda Muni. Their stated reasoning was that they were members of the Hindu public with a legitimate interest in the religious institutions and that they wished to pursue the matter further in the interest of the deity and public worship, with added allegations fraud and procedural irregularity. Accepting their contention, the Commissioner allowed their prayer for transposition and permitted them to amend the original application, even though it had been previously withdrawn and was based on personal illness. The petitioner challenged this order in W.P.(C) No. 7381 of 2022, arguing inter alia that O.P. Nos.2 to 4 had no locus standi, the withdrawal had rendered the proceedings non est, and the Commissioner had become functus officio. However, by order dated 05.07.2023 vide Annexure-6, this Court dismissed the writ petition, observing that the issue of locus standi could be urged before the Commissioner. Subsequently, a Special Leave Petition in SLP No. 22324 of 2023, against the High Court’s order also failed, with the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 16.10.2023 vide Annexure-7, granting liberty to the petitioner to raise all permissible contentions before the Commissioner. Meanwhile, O.P. Nos. 2 to 4 had also filed W.P.(C) No. 16464 of 2021, in which this Court, by order dated 10.12.2024, directed the learned Commissioner to dispose of the pending petition under Order IX Rule 13 CPC within 10 days. In compliance, the Commissioner proceeded with the matter and allowed the amended Misc. Case No. 23/2007, thereby setting aside the ex parte order of 09.10.2007. In the final order, the Commissioner accepted the claim of O.P. Nos. 2 to 4 that the original order was vitiated by fraud, despite there being no such allegation in the original pleadings. He WP(C) No. 3694 of 2025 Page 7 of 18 further held that since the petitioner had not issued public notice properly and had allegedly suppressed material facts, the original decision could not stand. The learned Commissioner concluded that the petition was maintainable at the instance of O.P. Nos. 2 to 4 as representatives of the Hindu public, even though they were not parties to the original OA No. 30/2001 and had only entered the fray many years later. Aggrieved by this final decision, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition, contending inter alia that the transposition of O.P. Nos. 2 to 4 was illegal, the proceedings stood closed upon withdrawal by Nityananda Muni, the amendments were impermissible in law, and the Commissioner had exceeded his jurisdiction. 8. In view of the factual backdrop and the contentions raised, the principal issue that arises for our determination is whether Opposite Parties 2 to 4, who were the original petitioners in Misc. Case No. 23 of 2007 and had alleged want of notice and procedural irregularities in the passing of the ex parte order dated 09.10.2007 in OA No. 30 of 2001, could validly pursue and amend their application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, and whether the Commissioner rightly accepted their locus as persons having interest in the institutions governed under the OHRE Act. 9. In examining this, three connected sub-issues arise: (i) Whether the procedural continuance and amendment of the Order IX Rule 13 application by O.Ps. 2 to 4 was legally permissible under the CPC, particularly in light of Order XXIII Rule 1A and Order I Rule 10(2); WP(C) No. 3694 of 2025 Page 8 of 18 (ii) Whether O.Ps. 2 to 4 qualify as “persons having interest” under Section 3(h) of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951; and (iii) Whether their identity as members of the local Hindu public with a shared interest in temple affairs is sufficient to sustain their prayer for setting aside the ex parte recognition of the petitioner as Hereditary Trustee. Sub-Issue 1: Whether the transposition of Opposite Parties 2 to 4 as petitioners was legally permissible under Order XXIII Rule 1A CPC, read with Order I Rule 10(2), in the context of a withdrawn proceeding under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC? 10. The Order XXIII Rule 1A, CPC, reads as: “Where a suit is withdrawn or abandoned by a plaintiff under Rule 1, and a defendant applies to be transposed as a plaintiff under Rule 10 of Order I, the Court shall, in considering such application, have due regard to the question whether the applicant has a substantial question to be decided as against any of the other defendants.” Further, the Order I Rule 10(2), CPC, reads as: “The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added.” WP(C) No. 3694 of 2025 Page 9 of 18 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Anil Kumar Singh vs. Shivnath Mishra, reported in (1995) 3 SCC 147, while dealing in respect of Order I Rule 10(2), has held that: “7.By operation of the above-quoted rule though the Court may have power to strike out the name of a party improperly joined or add a party either on application or without application of either party, but the condition precedent, is that the Court must be satisfied that the presence of the party to be added, would be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit. To bring a person as party defendant is not a substantive right but one of procedure and the Court has discretion in its proper exercise. The object of the rule is to bring on record all the persons who are parties to the dispute relating to the subject matter so that the dispute may be determined in their presence at the same time without any protraction, inconvenience and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.” 12. The principle equally informs the judicial approach to transposition under Order XXIII Rule 1A, as it necessarily relies on Order I Rule 10(2) for its operational footing. In the present case, Misc. Case No. 23/2007, an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was originally filed by Nityananda Muni, who later withdrew the application via a memo dated 28.12.2021. The withdrawal was allowed by the Commissioner. However, O.P. Nos. 2 to 4, who had been impleaded in 2014, moved the Commissioner seeking transposition as petitioners in place of the original applicant. The petitioner argued that once the withdrawal was accepted, the Commissioner had become functus officio, and that the application had become non est, barring any further relief. However, this contention fails to recognise the underlying equitable and procedural rationale that governs transposition in special civil proceedings. WP(C) No. 3694 of 2025 Page 10 of 18 Order XXIII Rule 1A is not restricted to formal suits alone. It reflects a broader principle to avoid defeating adjudication of a justiciable issue merely because of a plaintiff’s withdrawal, especially where another party with legitimate interest is already on record. Here, O.P. Nos. 2 to 4 were already impleaded parties to the proceeding. Their presence was recognised in 2014, based on their application claiming interest in the temple’s administration as members of the local Hindu public. They did not appear as strangers, post-withdrawal; rather, they were participants to an ongoing cause, albeit with limited procedural rights until their transposition. Their interest stemmed not from personal aggrandisement but from an asserted commitment to protect the integrity of the temple administration and challenge the 2007 ex parte order which, in their view, had been obtained without adequate notice to interested public. Order XXIII Rule 1A expressly operates via Order I Rule 10(2). The discretion conferred under Order I Rule 10(2) allows the court to add or transpose parties at any stage of the proceeding where their presence is necessary to “effectually and completely adjudicate upon” the dispute. The test, as affirmed in Anil Kumar Singh, is whether the applicant for transposition is necessary or proper for adjudication of the subject matter. Here, the dispute concerns the rightful status of a hereditary trustee of public temples, a subject that has community-wide religious and administrative implications. The participation of interested persons who represent the religious community is not only proper but essential to uphold public confidence and the statutory framework of the OHRE Act. WP(C) No. 3694 of 2025 Page 11 of 18 By allowing transposition, the Commissioner ensured that the core legal challenge, whether the 2007 order was vitiated by procedural impropriety or fraud was not foreclosed due to technical withdrawal. To deny transposition would have been to silence an unresolved challenge to the legitimacy of the trustee's appointment, risking multiplicity of fresh litigation or public unrest. A vital distinction must be made between the application and the cause underlying it. The cause i.e., the grievance of the present Hindu Public against an allegedly flawed ex parte order in OA 30/2001 survived the withdrawal. Transposition allowed that cause to be procedurally realigned with a party willing to carry it forward. The cause did not mutate with the change in party; it continued within the same statutory and factual framework. The transposed parties did not seek to raise a wholly new issue but to pursue the same relief already initiated thus maintaining procedural continuity and adjudicative integrity. Sub-Issue 2: Whether Opposite Parties 2 to 4 qualify as “persons having interest” under Section 3(h) of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments (OHRE) Act, 1951, and if so, whether their identification as “Hindu public” justifies their right to pursue the same relief post transposition? 13. Section 3(x) of the Odisha Hindu Religious Endowment Act, 1951, defines “person having interest” as below: “person having interest” means – (a) in the case of a math a disciple of the math or a person [at the Religious persuasion] to which the math belongs; WP(C) No. 3694 of 2025 Page 12 of 18 (b) in the case of temple, a person who visits or who is entitled to visit the temple for darsan of the deity or attend at the performance of worship or service in the temple or who is in the habit of attending such performance or of partaking in the benefit of the distribution of gifts thereat and in the case of a specific endowment, a person who visits or who is entitled to attend at or is in the habit of attending the performance of the service or charity, or who is entitled to partake or is in the habit of partaking in the benefit of the charity. 14. The expression “person having interest”, defined in Section 3(x), is not to be read in isolation from the religious and cultural context of public temples. In the case of public Hindu temples, those who regularly participate in the rituals, observe festivals, or partake in prasadam, offerings, or other temple-based charitable functions may all qualify under this definition even if not officially on temple rolls or committees. The term “Hindu public”, while broader and more collective in nature, overlaps with and includes within it numerous persons falling within Section 3(x). The "Hindu public" is not a legal fiction but a dynamic religious community with vested customary, devotional, and legal interest in temple functioning, especially where such temples are notified public institutions under the OHRE Act. 15. In the present case, O.P. Nos. 2 to 4 are residents of Seragada, the village where all three temples in question are located. They have asserted, without rebuttal, that they have long been associated with the worship and daily activities of the temples. They have also actively engaged in litigation over temple governance such as O.P. No.4 previously seeking to be Archaka, indicating a sustained and deep concern with the religious and administrative functioning of these institutions. WP(C) No. 3694 of 2025 Page 13 of 18 When Nityananda Muni filed Misc. Case No. 23/2007 under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, his sole prayer was to set aside the ex parte order dated 09.10.2007 in OA No. 30/2001, which had recognised the petitioner as the Hereditary Trustee. That recognition, as alleged, had been granted without adequate participation of interested persons and allegedly by misrepresentation. When O.P. Nos.2 to 4 were impleaded in 2014, they joined at the stage of that same application, and they too sought to challenge the 2007 ex parte order, not on a different ground, but on the same basis of procedural irregularity and want of notice. After the original applicant withdrew the case in 2021, OPs 2 to 4 merely stepped forward to continue pursuing the identical relief, thus preserving continuity of cause and consistency of legal purpose. 16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that procedural devices must not defeat substantive justice, especially in matters involving public rights. In public religious endowments, such as these temples, the cause does not extinguish with the individual applicant, it endures within the community of persons who share the religious stake and social accountability tied to temple governance. By recognising Opposite Parties 2 to 4 as falling within Section 3(x), the Court would not be expanding the law but rather applying it in the spirit of its design to allow legitimate stakeholders to safeguard institutional integrity. Their presence would ensure that the public temples remain accountable; the hereditary succession remains transparent; there is no misuse of statutory processes or fraudulent procurement of rights. Their identification as part of the “Hindu WP(C) No. 3694 of 2025 Page 14 of 18 public” does not dilute their locus, it enriches and affirms it in the context of the OHRE Act. Sub-Issue 3: Whether being part of the “Hindu public” is sufficient to sustain the transposition of Opposite Parties 2 to 4, and if so, whether their role in the proceeding legitimately entitles them to continue the relief originally sought by Nityananda Muni? 17. The jurisprudence surrounding participation in public religious endowment disputes draws a careful line between bona fide members of the Hindu public with a religious or customary link to the institution and mere strangers or interlopers. While not every member of the general public has locus to initiate temple litigation, a local Hindu public member, particularly one with sustained and direct involvement in the temple’s affairs, does possess legally recognizable interest, particularly under statutes like the OHRE Act, 1951. 18. In the present case, the Opposite Parties are residents of Seragada, the very village in which the temples in question are situated. Their long-standing familiarity with the temple’s religious operations, including participation in festivals, day-to-day rituals, and observance of temple customs, makes them part of the religiously active Hindu public. Their written statements and pleadings indicate consistent concern with the integrity and proper governance of the institutions. This distinguishes them from disinterested parties with no connection to the temple. As such, their WP(C) No. 3694 of 2025 Page 15 of 18 identity as “Hindu public” is not incidental, but integral to their standing in the present context. 19. It is crucial to note that O.P. Nos. 2 to 4 grievances were not foreign to the original cause. Their application to be transposed was made after the original applicant (Nityananda Muni) withdrew his case, and was motivated by a desire to safeguard the integrity of a pending challenge to the ex parte order dated 09.10.2007 passed in O.A. No. 30 of 2001. The relief sought by the transposed parties was identical to what was sought by the original applicant under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, setting aside of the ex parte recognition of hereditary trusteeship, which they contended was secured without proper notice and contrary to the principles of natural justice. This shared and continuous legal interest in the subject matter satisfies the legal requirements for transposition. It affirms that the cause did not die with the withdrawal, but rather remained a live issue of public consequence, particularly in light of the temples being public religious institutions. The OHRE Act, 1951 was enacted precisely to ensure that public temples are managed transparently and in accordance with the interests of their communities. A rigid exclusion of active and genuinely interested community members on the ground that they were not part of the original application would defeat the very purpose of this public-facing regulatory statute. In this respect, the Courts have taken a liberal view in permitting the Hindu public to act where the issue at stake affects collective worship, religious rights, or institutional succession. The communal character of temple governance justifies participatory standing, especially when it WP(C) No. 3694 of 2025 Page 16 of 18 concerns appointments to hereditary offices and statutory compliance. Thus, the transposition of Opposite Parties 2 to 4 does not distort the proceeding, but rather restores the representative and protective role the public must be allowed to play when such serious allegations as procedural fraud and irregularity are involved. 20. As per the above discussion, we find that O.P. Nos. 2 to 4 being the original petitioners in Misc. Case No. 23 of 2007 were competent and justified in seeking the setting aside of the ex parte order dated 09.10.2007 passed in OA No. 30 of 2001. Their claim, rooted in the lack of notice and opportunity of hearing in a matter involving public religious institutions, raised a substantial and justiciable question. Their continued participation in the proceedings, even following procedural uncertainties such as the withdrawal of one petitioner or amendments to pleadings, is supported both by Order XXIII Rule 1A and Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, and by the equitable requirement of ensuring that all necessary parties be heard in a matter concerning temple succession. The O.P. Nos. 2 to 4 qualify as “persons having interest” within the meaning of Section 3(x) of the OHRE Act, 1951, given their residency in Seragada, sustained involvement in temple activities, and their bona fide concern with its governance. Their identity as members of the Hindu public is not ornamental but substantive, as they share the very institutional interest that the original proceeding failed to account for. Their pursuit of identical relief originally sought under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, in the interest of the deities and the wider community of worshippers, establishes both their standing and legal propriety in continuing the proceeding. WP(C) No. 3694 of 2025 Page 17 of 18 21. Accordingly, the order dated 10.01.2025 passed by the learned Commissioner of Endowments in Misc. Case No. 23 of 2007 is hereby upheld. Consequently, the order dated 09.10.2007 passed in OA No. 30 of 2001 is set aside, and the said original application stands restored to the file of the learned Commissioner for fresh adjudication in accordance with law, after issuing notice to all necessary and proper parties, including the present petitioner and Opposite Parties Nos. 2 to 7. The learned Commissioner is directed to proceed with the matter expeditiously and conclude the hearing preferably within a period of four months from the date of communication of this order. 22.
Decision
Consequently, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge B.P. Routray, J. I agree. (B. P. Routray) Judge A.K.Pradhan/Bijay Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BIJAY KETAN SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 16-May-2025 18:39:21 WP(C) No. 3694 of 2025 Page 18 of 18