JUDGMENT : Ahmad, C.J. - This is a Miscellaneous appeal brought under Sub-section (2) of Section 44 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act 1951 (Orissa Act No. 11 of 1952) by the Petitioner in the Court below (Sri Srinivas Ramanuja Das who is the present Mahant of Dakshina Parswa Math, Puri. 2. The Guru Mahant and predecessor in office of the present Appellant was one Sri Jagannath Ramanuja Das. This Guru Mahant died on the 6th September, 1956 and on his death the Appellant succeeded to the Gaddi as Mahant. 3. During the year 1953 when the late Guru Mahant was still alive, there were certain allegations made against him about the mismanagement of the Math. That led to an enquiry by the then Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowments, Orissa, as provided in Section 38 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1939 (Orissa Act No. IV of 1939) and ultimately on the 14th January, 1954 to the settlement of a scheme for the administration of the Math, as contemplated there under. This scheme was subsequently published in the Orissa Gazette dated the 29th May, 1954, and finally put into force on the 16th February, 1956. In the meantime there was already an application filed by the previous Mahant in this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the validity of some of the provisions of the scheme. But, unfortunately the previous Mahat died soon thereafter. Therefore, on his death the present Mahant was substituted therein as his heir and successor. Further there was also an independent application filed by the present Mahant under Article 226 of the Constitution alleging that in any case the scheme as framed was not binding on him, he being not a party to the proceeding giving rise to that scheme. Both these applications were heard together by this Court, though they were disposed of by two separate judgments reported in Srinivasa Ramanuja Das v. Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowments, Orissa 25 C.L.T. 88 and Jagannath Ramanuja Das v. B.K. Patro Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowments Orissa 25 C.L.T. 98. Both these applications were heard together by this Court, though they were disposed of by two separate judgments reported in Srinivasa Ramanuja Das v. Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowments, Orissa 25 C.L.T. 88 and Jagannath Ramanuja Das v. B.K. Patro Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowments Orissa 25 C.L.T. 98. There under, the scheme as framed was held binding on the Petitioner but it was directed to be modified in the light of the principles as laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Sadashib Prakash v. State of Orissa 22 C.L.T. 235 (S.C.) Ratilal Ramachand v. State of Bombay and Anr. AIR 1954 S.C. 1005. Mahant Shri Gadadhar Ramanuj Das and Ors. v. The State of Orissa AIR 1954 S.C. 1046 and Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowments Madras v. L.T. Swamiar 20 C.L.T. 250 (S.C.). Accordingly, the aforesaid scheme was thereafter modified by an order passed under Sub-section (6) of Section 42 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 (Orissa Act No. 11 of 1952) and since the 1st March, 1960, it is this modified scheme which has been in force there up till now. 4. Now the prayer made by the Appellant in this present petition which has been filed by him under Sub-section (6) of Section 42 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 is that this scheme of administration, for the reasons as stated therein should be cancelled or that such other order or orders be passed as appear fit and proper in the interests of justice and the circumstances of the case. The learned commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowments of a full and elaborate discussion of all the materials on the record has rejected that petition by his order dated the 23rd October, 1963 and has, in his order finally concluded that- I find no reason to allow the petition for cancelling the scheme. It is this order which is the subject-matter of the present miscellaneous appeal filed, as already stated, under Sub-section (2) of Section 44 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951. 5. Mr. Mohanty appearing for the Appellant supported the appeal on the following grounds: (i) That the Petitioner, being not a party to the proceeding giving rise to the scheme is not bound by it; and as such the same should have been, on his succession as Mahant, cancelled. 5. Mr. Mohanty appearing for the Appellant supported the appeal on the following grounds: (i) That the Petitioner, being not a party to the proceeding giving rise to the scheme is not bound by it; and as such the same should have been, on his succession as Mahant, cancelled. (ii) The scheme having been framed by reason of the finding about the mismanagement on the part of the predecessor-in-office of the present Mahant, cannot enure beyond the lifetime of that Mahant. (iii) That the operation of the scheme should not be made perpetual. (iv) That the administration of the Math under the scheme, instead of improving the management, has result in its deterioration. 6. Now, so far as the first two grounds are concerned they are substantially inter-related and can be taken up together for discussion. In my opinion, neither of these two points has any substance. Sub-section (7) of Section 42 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951, provides every order of the Assistant Commissioner or the Commissioner, setting, modifying or cancelling a scheme under this section shall, subject to the provisions of Section 44 be binding on the trustee, the Executive Officer and all persons having interest. It is true that the Appellant was not a trustee at the time when the scheme was framed, but definitely he was one of the persons having an interest in the trust. The expression "having interest therein" is specifically defined in the Act in Section 3(x). Clause (a) of that sub-section provides that- "persons having interest" means- (a) in the case of a math, a disciple of the Math or a person professing the Hindu religion, or the Sikh faith to which the math belongs. 7. The Appellant was a disciple of the previous Mahant at the time when the scheme was settled. As such, he cannot escape from the consequences of the scheme as one of the persons having interest in the math. Apart from this, this question stands concluded by the decision of this Court already given in the previous case reported in Mahant Rarnanuja Das v. Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endearments 25 C.L.T. 88. Paragraph 13 of that judgment elaborately deals with this very question. Therein the learned Chief Justice has observed as follows: 13. The second contention of Mr. Mohanty is also equally unconvincing. Paragraph 13 of that judgment elaborately deals with this very question. Therein the learned Chief Justice has observed as follows: 13. The second contention of Mr. Mohanty is also equally unconvincing. u/s 40 of the old Act a scheme is final and binding on the trustee and all persons having interest, subject to such modifications or cancellations as may be made by the Civil Court. u/s 41, in a properly constituted suit. Under Sub-sections (6) and (7) of Section 42 of the new Act also, the same principle has been recognised and it has been provided that subject to any modification or cancellation that may be made by the officers of the Endowments Department and to an order that may be passed by the High Court on appeal u/s 44, the scheme shall be binding on the trustee, the Executive Officer and an persons having interest. Mr. Mohanty urged that the word 'trustee' used in the aforesaid sections means only the trustee ill whose presence the scheme was framed and it cannot include the successor-in-interest. In support of this argument he relied very much on the fact that under the old Act the condition precedent to the framing of the scheme is the finding about acts of mismanagement and misattributed to his successor-in interest, unless and until he is given an opportunity to manage the math for sometime, it would not be proper to hold that the scheme binds the successors-in-interest also. There might have been some force in this argument but for the fact that both under the old Act and under the new Act it is expressly provided that such a scheme binds not only the trustee but all persons having interest. As already shown 'a person having interest' has been defined, in the case of a math as including the disciple of a Mahant. The Petitioner was undoubtedly a disciple of the previous Mahant at the time when the scheme was settled. He was therefore bound by the scheme not in his capacity as a "person having interest" in the math. Thus when the scheme was binding on him when it was settled in January 1954, it will be futile say that it ceased to be binding on him when he succeeded the previous Mahant on his demise on the 6th September 1956. Thus when the scheme was binding on him when it was settled in January 1954, it will be futile say that it ceased to be binding on him when he succeeded the previous Mahant on his demise on the 6th September 1956. His change in status from that of a disciple to that of a Mahant is not material so far as the binding nature of the scheme is concerned. Sub-sections (6) and (7) of Section 42 of the new Act and Sections 40 and 41 of the old Act make it clear that a scheme validly settled is final and binding on all persons concerned unless it is modified or cancelled in accordance with the provisions of the two Acts, that is by an application to the Civil Court under the old Act, or by an application to the Endowments Commissioner or by an appeal to the High Court under the new Act. I would, therefore, hold that the scheme binds the present Mahant also. It is therefore too late now to contend that the Appellant being not a party to the proceeding giving rise to the scheme is not bound by it. No doubt the present scheme was framed at a time when the previous Mahant was still in office, and it may also be conceded that it was the allegation of mismanagement made against the previous Mahant which ultimately led to the framing of this scheme. But the gist of the jurisdiction in the matter of framing a scheme lies in the necessity for the proper administration of the institution and not its mismanagement see Ponnuman Dikshitar and Another Vs. The Board of Commissioners for the Hindu Religious Endowments and Others. That being so the binding character of the scheme does not depend on the fact that the person who was responsible for the mismanagement of the math was the previous Mahant and not the present one. Once it is found that the scheme was validly framed, it is binding on all persons having interest therein, as provided in Sub-section (7) of Section 42 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951. Therefore, the second contention also, as advanced by Mr. Mohanty, fails. 8. This takes us to the third point raised by Mr. Mohanty. Once it is found that the scheme was validly framed, it is binding on all persons having interest therein, as provided in Sub-section (7) of Section 42 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951. Therefore, the second contention also, as advanced by Mr. Mohanty, fails. 8. This takes us to the third point raised by Mr. Mohanty. On principle, there can be no two opinions that the authority given under the Act to frame any scheme for the management of the math is to be exercised for the good of the institution and not for any permanent deprivation of the right that the Mahant has therein. This is so is also clear from the provision made in Sub-section (6) of Section 42 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951. That sub-section specifically provides that- the authority framing a scheme may at any time after consulting the trustee and the persons having interest, by order modify or cancel any scheme settled under Sub-section (1) or under the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act (IV) of 1939. But before a scheme is cancelled there under, the terms thereof have to be complied with. Unfortunately in the present case the learned Commissioner of Endowments does not find himself in a position to hold that the scheme, as formulated, has served its purpose, and as such should be cancelled. In such a case therefore if the administration of the Math is to continue for sometime more in the hands of the Committee appointed under the Scheme it Mnnot be validly said that the administration as made there under is calculated to perpetuate for ever. Circumstances may change from time to time and it will always be open for the competent authorities to decide whether the scheme, as framed, has served its purpose and therefore it should thereafter be cancelled. 9. As for the last submission, made by learned Counsel, it will suffice to say that this point was not raised before the learned commissioner of Endowments. After all, it involves consideration of facts relating to the present state of administration in the math. In the absence, therefore, of any material on the record as to the correctness or otherwise of the allegations made before us about the present management, this point cannot be allowed to be taken up for the first time in appeal. 10. After all, it involves consideration of facts relating to the present state of administration in the math. In the absence, therefore, of any material on the record as to the correctness or otherwise of the allegations made before us about the present management, this point cannot be allowed to be taken up for the first time in appeal. 10. For these reasons, I hold that the appeal is without substance. It is accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances of the case there will be no order for costs. Barman, J. 11. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed