JUDGMENT : Barman, C.J. - This is an application under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution by the Petitioner for removal of opposite party No. 1 Lingaraj Mohapatra from the membership of the Trust Board of Barsal Baluokeswar in respect of the deity Sri Baral Balunkeswar Deb in the circumstances hereinafter stated. 2. In a certain proceeding u/s 42 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act the Additional Assistant Commissioner of Endowments by his judgment dated September 24, 1964 framed a Scheme by which he gave certain directions for management of the affairs of the said institution in the manner as indicated in the Scheme. Clause 3 of the Scheme is this: 3. The management of the affairs institution of Sri Baral Balunkeswar at of the said Baral, P.O. Sarangajodi, District Puri with its endowments shall be managed by a Committee consisting five members, of which to will be out of Sebaks nominated by the Additional Assistant Commissioner of Endowments and the rest to be nominated by the Additional Assistant Commissioner of Endowments from among the outsiders, who shall hold the office for period of 5 years. 3. In pursuance of the said Scheme the Additional. Assistant Commissioner of Endowments passed an order dated March 23, 1965 by which he appointed as members of the Committee five persons including the Petitioner, opposite party No. 1 Lingaraj Mohapatra, opposite party No. 4 Natabar Jena and two others. It appears from the said order that the Additional Assistant Commissioner of Endowments appointed the said persons as members of the Committee because all the persons present unanimously suggested their names as members of the Committee. It is clear that the Additional Assistant Commissioner of Endowments did not apply his mind to the making of the said appointment although under Clause 3 of the Scheme as quoted above he was directed to nominate the members of the Committee at his own discretion. 4. It is clear from record that there is party faction in respect of the management of this particular institution in that there are two groups-one group led by one of the members of the Committee and the other by another member. In these circumstances it is necessary that the management of this institution should be left in charge of an independent person who can manage it, efficiently in the interests of the institution. 5. In these circumstances it is necessary that the management of this institution should be left in charge of an independent person who can manage it, efficiently in the interests of the institution. 5. We therefore set aside the order of appointment dated March 23, 1965 passed by the Addl. Assistant Commissioner of Endowments and direct the Commissioner of Endowments to appoint as Executive Officer such person (other than any of the five persons now in the Committee) who shall be one professing the Hindu religion on such salary as may be fixed to be paid out of the funds of the institution; if necessary, the Commissioner of Endowments may also define the powers and duties of such officer as he may think fit according to law, all within the month from the date of receipt of this order. The Commissioner of Endowments is further directed that pending taking over charge of the endowment by the Executive Officer to he appointed by him, the Commissioner would direct one of his Assistant Commissioners of Endowments to take charge of the endowment immediately and to manage it until he hands over the same to the Executive Officer to be appointed by the Commissioner of Endowments. 6. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. Acharya, J. 7. I agree.