The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 9980 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 O.P. No.1 Mr. J. K. Khandayatray, ASC for O.P. No.2 Mr. A. Mishra, Advocate Caveator 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. This Writ Petition is a connected matter to W.P.(C) No. 3694 of 2025, involving the same parties and religious institutions, and arises from a subsequent order passed during the pendency of proceedings under the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951. Here, the Petitioner has challenged the order dated 20.03.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Endowments, Odisha (O.P. No.1), appointing the Tahasildar, Seragada as “fit person” under Section 7 of the OHRE Act, contending that the said order was passed without WP(C) No. 9980 of 2025 Page 1 of 9 providing him the opportunity of being heard, during the pendency of proceedings in which his recognition as hereditary trustee is under adjudication. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that the Petitioner claims to be the Hereditary Trustee and Mahant, having succeeded his spiritual predecessor Mahant Gobardhan Das vide a Will dated 24.05.1990. Following Mahant Gobardhan Das’s death in June 1990, the Petitioner had applied under Section 30 of the OHRE Act in OA No. 30/2001 seeking recognition as Hereditary Trustee. That application was allowed ex parte on 09.10.2007. However, the said ex parte order was stayed in Misc. Case No. 23/2007, filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC by objectors including Nityananda Muni since dead and later pursued by others including some of the present opposite parties. This led to prolonged litigation involving multiple writ petitions and proceedings before the Commissioner and the High Court. During the pendency of those proceedings and while the petitioner continued to function as “person in management” as per the Commissioner's interim order dated 08.10.2020, a petition was filed by O.P. Nos. 3 to 11 before the Commissioner seeking the appointment of a fit person under Section 7, alleging mismanagement. Without issuing notice to the Petitioner or affording any opportunity of hearing, the Commissioner passed the impugned order dated 20.03.2025, appointing the local Tahasildar as the fit person. The Petitioner now challenges that order as being without jurisdiction, passed in violation of natural justice, and during the pendency of both OA No. 30/2001 and W.P.(C) No. 3694 of 2025 concerning the same subject matter. WP(C) No. 9980 of 2025 Page 2 of 9 3.
Legal Reasoning
taken by this Court in the present matter. 5. Mr. A. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for O.P No. 6, submitted that Annexure-5 was a petition filed by concerned villagers representing the Hindu public, sought necessary arrangements in the interest of the institution pending disposal of Misc. Case No. 23 of 2007, particularly as the question of hereditary trusteeship remains sub judice. The said representation was justified in view of the Explanation to Section 7 of the OHRE Act, 1951, which permits the Commissioner to pass such interim orders as deemed necessary for proper management of an institution when a dispute is pending. He further argued that the Commissioner had earlier exercised his power in management side under Annexure-2, and that the impugned order was passed after more than two months following the withdrawal of W.P.(C) No. 16464 of 2021, and cannot WP(C) No. 9980 of 2025 Page 4 of 9 be treated as hasty or arbitrary. Mr. Mishra further contended that the Petitioner himself had accepted and acted upon the appointment of an Interim Trust Board constituted by the Commissioner in 1991, and hence, his belated claim to be declared as Hereditary Trustee after more than a decade is legally untenable. He also submitted that the Petitioner has suppressed material facts relating to orders passed in Annexure-H/2 and J/2. Mr. Mishra further asserts that that the Petitioner is an outsider, originally appointed by an interim trust board, and has no legal entitlement to continue as fit person, particularly when serious allegations of misappropriation of monthly rents from tenants have been raised, and therefore, the impugned administrative action taken by O.P. No.1 is both justified and within statutory bounds. 6. The issue for consideration in the present writ petition is whether the order dated 20.03.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Endowments, Odisha, appointing the Tahasildar, Seragada as “fit person” under Section 7 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951, is legally sustainable in the facts and circumstances of the case, inasmuch as the Petitioner, who was continuing as “person in management” under a prior order of the Commissioner dated 08.10.2020, was neither issued notice nor granted an opportunity of hearing before such appointment was made. 7. Section 7 of the OHRE Act, reads as – 7. Powers and Duties of Commissioner :– (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the general superintendence of and endowments shall vest in the Commissioner. all Religious institutions [ x x x ] WP(C) No. 9980 of 2025 Page 5 of 9 [(2)] The Commissioner may do all things which are reasonable and necessary to ensure that the Religious institutions and endowments are properly administered and that their income is duly appropriated for the purposes which they were founded or exist. Explanation :– The Commissioner shall have power to pass such interim orders as he deems necessary for the proper maintenance of a Religious institution, or the proper administration of a Religious endowment including the power to pass such orders if and when necessary for the proper management of any institution when a dispute concerning the same is pending in a Court. 8. From the text, it is apparent that the Commissioner is statutorily empowered to intervene on administrative grounds where the interests of the institution are at risk or require preservation. This includes the power to appoint a “fit person”, i.e., a temporary manager or custodian, when the circumstances so demand, such as, when there is no validly recognised trustee, or where mismanagement is alleged and no one is lawfully in charge. However, judicial precedents as in the matter of Sri Padmanav Giri Goswami vs. Commissioner of Endowment, reported in 2004 (II) OLR 492 make it abundantly clear that such powers must be exercised in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The appointment of a fit person cannot be made without prior notice or due inquiry, especially when there is an existing person in management, such as in the present case where the petitioner was allowed to function as such under an interim order dated 08.10.2020. Moreover, it is well established that the Commissioner cannot displace a hereditary trustee or someone claiming such status without due process under Sections 28 to 35 of the Act. Interim measures like the appointment of a fit person are justified only in the absence of WP(C) No. 9980 of 2025 Page 6 of 9 any valid trustee, or where a clear administrative vacuum or risk of mismanagement is demonstrated. In the instant case, while the Commissioner may claim administrative power under Section 7, such power is not unfettered. It must be exercised with procedural fairness, supported by recorded reasons, and only when statutorily warranted. The legality of the impugned order, therefore, hinges not merely on the Commissioner’s statutory competence, but on whether the conditions precedent for exercising that power existed, and whether the manner of its exercise complied with due process and fairness. 9. It is not disputed that the petitioner had been functioning as the “person in management” of the temples pursuant to an order of the Commissioner dated 08.10.2020, and his claim for recognition as Hereditary Trustee under Section 30 of the OHRE Act remains pending adjudication in OA No. 30 of 2001; which is now restored following the setting aside of an earlier ex parte order vide judgment dated 16.05.2025 in W.P.(C) 3694 of 2025 (connected matter). Despite this, the impugned order dated 20.03.2025 was passed appointing the Tahasildar, Seragada as fit person, without issuing notice or affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. This fundamental breach of natural justice is the principal ground on which the present writ petition is founded. 10. The counter affidavit filed by Opposite Party No. 6 indicates that complaints alleging mismanagement were indeed submitted by a group of local residents, including the answering Opposite Parties. However, there is no indication from the record that even these complainants were issued notice or heard in any formal or quasi- WP(C) No. 9980 of 2025 Page 7 of 9 judicial manner prior to the Commissioner acting on their request. Their affidavit supports the action taken, citing administrative urgency and the Commissioner’s powers under Section 7, but does not demonstrate that any reasoned inquiry preceded the order. 11. In this context, the procedural illegality of displacing a person already functioning under a prior lawful order, and whose substantive rights are pending judicial determination, is evident. The appointment of a fit person during the pendency of a Section 30 proceeding, particularly where the petitioner has not been declared disqualified or removed under the relevant provisions of the Act, appears not only premature but jurisdictionally questionable. The Commissioner was expected to exercise restraint and allow the adjudicatory mechanism to conclude before making any administrative change to the temple’s management. 12. In view of the discussion above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order dated 20.03.2025, passed by the Commissioner of Endowments, Odisha, appointing the Tahasildar, Seragada as fit person under Section 7 of the OHRE Act, 1951, suffers from procedural illegality. The petitioner, who was continuing as the “person in management” pursuant to the Commissioner’s earlier order dated 08.10.2020, was not issued any notice or afforded an opportunity of hearing before being displaced. This omission constitutes a violation of the principles of natural justice. Furthermore, there is no material on record to show that the Commissioner applied his mind to the legal status of the Petitioner or to the pendency of OA No. 30 of 2001, where the Petitioner’s claim for hereditary trusteeship is under active adjudication. WP(C) No. 9980 of 2025 Page 8 of 9 13.
Arguments
Mr. S. S. Rao, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Petitioner contended that the impugned order dated 20.03.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Endowments, Odisha, appointing the Tahasildar, Seragada as “fit person” under Section 7 of the OHRE Act, is wholly arbitrary, illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice. He contended that the Petitioner was already functioning as the “person in management” of the temple institutions pursuant to the Commissioner’s prior order dated 08.10.2020, which had not been set aside. His claim as Hereditary Trustee was also pending adjudication in OA No. 30 of 2001. Mr. Rao asserts that despite this, the Commissioner proceeded to appoint a fit person during the pendency of those proceedings, and without issuing any notice or granting the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, thereby rendering the action procedurally unfair. It was further argued that there existed no circumstance warranting the exercise of emergency administrative powers under Section 7, particularly in the absence of any vacancy or proven mismanagement. Mr. Rao submitted that even where the Commissioner has statutory powers to pass interim orders, such discretion must be exercised with procedural safeguards and due application of mind, especially when affecting vested and pending claims. He emphasised that the impugned order was not based on any inquiry, nor was it supported by a reasoned finding, and therefore, it deserves to be quashed. Mr. Rao has also placed his reliance on the decision of this Court in the matter of Nagabhan Naik and Ors. Vs. Sadananda Das and Anr. reported in 1972 AIR (Orissa) 188. WP(C) No. 9980 of 2025 Page 3 of 9 4. Ms. P. Naidu, learned counsel appearing for O.P. No.1, justifies the impugned order dated 20.03.2025 by submitting that the Commissioner had acted within the scope of powers conferred under Section 7 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951. She contended that the administrative authority of the Commissioner extends to taking interim measures to ensure the proper management of religious institutions, particularly in the face of allegations of mismanagement and during the pendency of disputes regarding trusteeship. She clarifies that the appointment of the Tahasildar, Seragada as a fit person was a preventive step to safeguard the interests of the institution and avoid an administrative vacuum. However, Ms. Naidu did not seriously object to the prayer of the petitioner and submitted that O.P. No.1 will abide by the decision
Decision
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed, and the order dated 20.03.2025 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Commissioner of Endowments, Odisha, who shall consider the prayer for appointment of a fit person afresh, after issuing notice to the Petitioner and all concerned Opposite Parties, and after providing them a reasonable opportunity of hearing, the Commissioner shall pass a reasoned order in accordance with law and with due regard to the pendency of OA No. 30 of 2001. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order. 14. In the interim, and until a fresh decision is taken by the Commissioner in accordance with the above directions, the fit person i.e. the Tahasildar shall continue to function as such in management of the temples in question, subject to further orders of the competent authority. (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge B.P. Routray, J. I agree. (B. P. Routray) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BIJAY KETAN SAHOO A.K.Pradhan/Bijay Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 16-May-2025 18:39:21 WP(C) No. 9980 of 2025 Page 9 of 9