JUDGMENT : Misra, J. - This is an appeal u/s 44 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 (hereinafter called the Act) against the order of the Endowment Commissioner framing a scheme u/s 42 of the Act. The Appellant is the Mahant of Gopal Tirth Math. He himself filed a petition for framing a scheme in respect of the Math on 2-5-1956. The Assistant Endowment Commissioner recommended the framing of a scheme on the basis of that petition to the Endowment Commissioner on 9-6-1956. On receiving the Assistant Endowment Commissioners report the Endowment Commissioner started a proceeding u/s 42 of the Act, issuing a public notice and notices to all concerned. On 10-7-1956, the Endowment Commissioner examined the Appellant, and in his examination, the Appellant explained as to why he was anxious for the framing of a scheme. On 24-7-1956, the Endowment Commissioner passed an order that the scheme should be framed for proper management of the institution, stating the reasons for that order. Thereafter, while the Endowment Commissioner was proceeding with the details of the scheme, on 11-2-1957 the Appellant filed a petition withdrawing his previous petition for the framing of the scheme, and that was apparently e to some tension arising between himself and the Endowment Commissioner. The Endowment Commissioner did not permit the withdrawal of the earlier petition as there were no good reasons shown for the same and thereafter framed a scheme which has led to the present appeal. 2. Mr. Panda. learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, has no quarrel with the details of the scheme framed. His contention is that when the scheme was going to be framed at the initiative of the Appellant and when subsequently the Appellant sought to withdraw his petition, the withdrawal should have been permitted and there was no other justification for framing the scheme. According to Mr. Panda, there was no mis-management found or alleged against the Appellant in managing the institution, and the sole basis for framing a scheme was the Appellant's consent being withdrawn, there was nothing else to justify the framing of a scheme. 3. According to Mr. Panda, there was no mis-management found or alleged against the Appellant in managing the institution, and the sole basis for framing a scheme was the Appellant's consent being withdrawn, there was nothing else to justify the framing of a scheme. 3. Section 42 of the Act provides: Whenever there is reason to believe that in the interest of the proper administration of religious institution a scheme may be settled for it, or when not less than five persons having interest make an application in writing stating that in the interests of the proper administration of a religious institution, a scheme should be settled for it, the Assistant Commissioner or the Commissioner, as the case may be, shall proceed to frame a scheme in the manner hereinafter provided (a)...(b) in the case of religious institution presided over or managed by a hereditary trustee, the Assistant Commissioner shall make such enquiry as be thinks fit and submit his report to the Commissioner who shall hold an enquiry in the manner prescribed and so far as may be, in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, V of 1908 relating to the trial of suits and if he is satisfied that in the interests of the proper administration of such institution a scheme of administration should be settled, he shall consult in the prescribed manner the trustee and the persons having interest and by order settle a scheme: of administration for the institution. 4. The aforesaid provision of law sets out two stages (1) that the Endowment Commissioner should be satisfied after a proper enquiry that in the interest of the proper administration of the institution a scheme should be settled; and that after he is so satisfied he shall consult the trustee and persons having interest and settle a scheme of administration. In the present case, as I have set out, after receiving the report of the Assistant Endowment Commissioner and issuing notices to all concerned, the Endowment Commissioner recorded an order with reasons as to why a scheme should be settled. It is thereafter that he proceeded to settle the details of the scheme and at that stage the Appellant filed a petition to withdraw his earlier petition. After the Endowment Commissioner had decided that a scheme should be settled, there is no provision in the law for him to back out of that position. It is thereafter that he proceeded to settle the details of the scheme and at that stage the Appellant filed a petition to withdraw his earlier petition. After the Endowment Commissioner had decided that a scheme should be settled, there is no provision in the law for him to back out of that position. He is bound to frame a scheme and after a scheme has been framed, u/s 42(6) of the Act he may, under certain circumstances, cancel or modify the scheme. The Appellant's petition for withdrawal did not purport to be one u/s 42(6) of the Act. Though the Endowment Commissioner did not allow the withdrawal of the petition on the ground that there were no sufficient reasons for with drawal, under the law there could be no occasion for permitting such a withdrawal when previously the Endowment Commissioner had passed his orders deciding to frame a scheme. 5. Mr. Panda next sought to urge that there was no mismanagement alleged or found so as to justify a decision for framing a scheme. Section 42 does not stipulate that there must be mismanagement of the institution for taking a decision to frame a scheme. All that it requires is that a scheme may be settled for proper administration of a religious institution. The Appellant in his petition had indicated as to how framing a scheme would be in the interests of the proper administration of the Math and in his examination, he had stated, "My Guru has not left any cash. There was a liability of about Rs. 4000/- to Rs. 5000/- which I am gradually discharging. I feel that to carry out properly the purpose of the trust, of which I am trustee, it is necessary that I am assisted in the administration of the endowment by a committee." The Endowment Commissioner notes in his order, in which he decided to settle a scheme, "During the enquiry I have examined that Mahant at length to ascertain what his real object was in offering this suggestion (framing a scheme) and I am satisfied that he has been actuated by really good motive and that his idea is to hold this out as an object for other members of his brotherhood to follow. There is no allegation at all that the Mahant is guilty of any acts of mismanagement. There is no allegation at all that the Mahant is guilty of any acts of mismanagement. It may be that being too young be wants to share the burden of management of the institution with some members chosen from public and having sympathy with the object he has in view namely the furtherance of Sanskrit education." When the Appellant himself had expressed that a scheme was necessary in the interests of the proper administration of the institution and he had indicated some reasons therefor that gave sufficient jurisdiction to the Endowment Commissioner to decide to settle a scheme, and as I have said, no act of mismanagement was necessary to justify the framing of a scheme. 6. In the result, I find no merit in the present appeal which is accordingly dismissed. Parties, however, are to bear their respective costs. Appeal dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed