JUDGMENT : Narasimham, C.J. - This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution against an order of the Hindu Religious Endowments Commissioner, Orissa, passed u/s 19 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951, on 23-11-1958 according sanction to the lease of 95 cents of land appertaining to plot No. 153, of Khata No. 465 in village Biruda in favour of opposite parties 2 to 5. A petition filed subsequently by the Petitioner for review of that order was dismissed by the Commissioner on 11-2-1959. Against the aforesaid order u/s 19(1) of the Act the Petitioner filed an appeal to the Government as permitted by Sub-section (4) of Section 19. Government by their order dated 28-5-1959-Vide Law Department notification No. 3654 of that date dismissed that appeal. 2. The material facts are these. In village Birudi there is a small plot of 95 cents bearing plot No. 1536, appertaining to Khata No. 465, recorded in the name of the deity known as Dhawaleswar Mahadev. It was lying fallow for some time. On 23-11-1957 opposite parties 2 to 5 applied to the Endowments Commissioner, Orissa, for authorizing the said plot of land to be leased out to them for the purpose of constructing a house thereon on payment of reasonable rent and salami. The Endowments Commissioner registered that application as O.A. 282 of 1957-58 and sent notice through the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nayagarh, inviting objections to the settlement of the plot with the said opposite parties and also caned upon the Endowment Inspector and the Managing Trustee to submit their reports as to whether the lease was necessary and beneficial to the deity. The report of the Managing Trustee is filed as Annexure A to the counter affidavit of the Endowments Commissioner though its genuineness is challenged by Mr. M. Mohanty on behalf of the Petitioner. There is however no affidavit saying that it is a forged report and I see no reason to doubt its genuineness. The report of the Managing Trustee is filed as Annexure A to the counter affidavit of the Endowments Commissioner though its genuineness is challenged by Mr. M. Mohanty on behalf of the Petitioner. There is however no affidavit saying that it is a forged report and I see no reason to doubt its genuineness. From that report it appears that long before their application to the Endowments Commissioner the trustees had given out in the locality that they had decided to lease out the land as it was lying fallow, but opposite parties 2 to 5 instead of approaching the trustees for giving the lease in their favour, or requesting them to approach the Commissioner to accord sanction for lease in their favour, directly applied to the Commissioner for the purpose. The managing trustee recommended the lease in favour of the applicants. The report of the Inspector of Endowments also shows that he hold a local enquiry in the presence of the trustees and the parties and he also recommended the lease in favour of the applicants as that would be beneficial to the deity inasmuch as some rent could be realised from a piece of land that had otherwise been lying fallow. On receipt of these reports the Endowments Commissioner made some sort of enquiry at Nayagarh during the course of which one Maguni (who was one of the trustees) was also examined. Then he passed the impugned order, purporting to be one u/s 19(1) of the Endowments Act, sanctioning the lease in favour of the opposite parties. The Petitioner thereupon filed a review application stating that they were willing to pay a higher rental and a higher salami, but the Commissioner refused to review his order. 3. The question as to whether the lease in favour of opposite parties 2 to 5 is necessary and beneficial to the Deity is essentially a question for the satisfaction of the Endowments Commissioner in the first instance and of the Government as an appellate authority. It was rightly not canvassed before us. 3. The question as to whether the lease in favour of opposite parties 2 to 5 is necessary and beneficial to the Deity is essentially a question for the satisfaction of the Endowments Commissioner in the first instance and of the Government as an appellate authority. It was rightly not canvassed before us. The limited question for consideration therefore is whether on the aforesaid facts the Commissioner had or did not have jurisdiction to accord sanction to the grant of lease in favour of the opposite parties inasmuch as the original application for the lease was not made before the managing trustee and he did not forward the same with his recommendation to the Commissioner for either according sanction or withholding sanction. This depends on a construction of Section 19(1) of the Endowments Act. That sub-section does not say, expressly, that the Commissioner?s jurisdiction to accord sanction arises only on a proper application mad to him by the trustees themselves. It is completely silent as to who should move the Commissioner in the first instance. It is true, as rightly pointed out by Mr. Mohanty for the Petitioners, that the trustees are primarily responsible for the management of the institution, and u/s 14(2) of the Act they have full powers to do any acts necessary for the provident and beneficial administration of the institution. One would therefore ordinarily have expected the application to be filed before them. In fact the report of the managing trustee [annexure A to the affidavit of opposite party No. 1 (Endowments Commissioner)] shows that the trustees hail informed the people of the locality that the disputed land would be leased out. In these circumstances the application of the opposite parties made before the Endowments Commissioner in the first instance on 23-11-1957 might appear to be somewhat unusual. But this does not mean that the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to entertain such applications direct. His powers are wide u/s 7(2) and so long as he holds a proper enquiry and consults the trustees concerned after giving due notice to all persons interested, it will not be proper for this Court to hold that there was any initial lack of jurisdiction in the Commissioner so as to render the entire proceeding void. His powers are wide u/s 7(2) and so long as he holds a proper enquiry and consults the trustees concerned after giving due notice to all persons interested, it will not be proper for this Court to hold that there was any initial lack of jurisdiction in the Commissioner so as to render the entire proceeding void. In the absence of express words in Section 19(1) of the Endowments Act as to who should move the Commissioner, in the first instance, I am not prepared to go to the extent of saying that unless the trustees initiate the proceeding and apply to the Commissioner he has no jurisdiction to accord sanction to the lease as contemplated in that sub-section. The old Rules also do not say that the trustees alone should move in the first instance. It is true that in the new Rules, known as Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Rules 1959 which came into force on the 15th January 1959 there are express words in Rule 4(1) to indicate that apart from the trustees there may be other persons who may apply directly to the Endowments Commissioner for according sanction u/s 19(1). This rule however may not apply in the present case because the order of the Commissioner was passed long before the new Rules came into force. But though there was no express provision in the old Rules authorising persons other than trustees to apply direct to the Commissioner, nevertheless, as there is no express prohibition either in the old Rules or in the Act against making such applications, I must hold, bearing in mind the wide powers given to the Commissioner in Section 7 of the Act and Section 13 of the Act that he had jurisdiction to entertain the application of the opposite parties. 4. The rules of natural justice were also followed in this case. A report was called for from the managing trustees and also from the Inspector of Endowments who made a local enquiry in the presence of the trustees and the parties. The Commissioner also heard one of the trustees while camping at Nayagarh and passed a reasoned order which was upheld on appeal by the State Government. Under these circumstances we see no reason for interfering with his order in this application. 5. The petition is dismissed with costs. Hearing fee Rs. The Commissioner also heard one of the trustees while camping at Nayagarh and passed a reasoned order which was upheld on appeal by the State Government. Under these circumstances we see no reason for interfering with his order in this application. 5. The petition is dismissed with costs. Hearing fee Rs. 100/- (Rupees one hundred), to be apportioned equally between opposite party No. 1 on the one had and opposite parties 2 to 5 on the other. Das, J. 6. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed