JUDGMENT : R.N. Misra, J. - Sri Gopal Tirtha Math located at Balisahi in the town of Puri Is an ancient institution. The Petitioner had been nominated as successor of the math by the late Mahant Sankar Madhabananda Tirtha Swami under a will dated 4.10.1951. Upon the death of the said Mahant on 18.6.1955, the Petitioner duly succeeded as Mahant of the said math on 30th of June, 1955. 2. It is necessary to recount events from 1956 until the filing of the writ petition in brief. On 2-5-1956, the Mahant offered to the Commissioner of Endowments a proposal for the management of the math and its properties by a Committee to be set up by the Commissioner. On the basis of the said proposal, a proceeding purporting to be u/s 42 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 2 of 1952, was initiated in O.S. No. 64 of 1956-57. While the matter was pending decision of the Commissioner of Endowments, on 11-2-1957, the Petitioner in realisation of the fact that a scheme framed under the Act would not be fulfilling the purpose for which the Petitioner was anxious to have a scheme namely, spread of Sanskrit education and culture and management of a hostel to be named as "Sankar Gopal Tirthashramu". applied for withdrawal of the proposal. The then Commissioner of Endowments, however, did not acceed to the request of withdrawal and by his order dated 20th of March, 1956, accepted the scheme as proposed by the Petitioner and settled and published the same as required under law. The Petitioner thereupon carried an appeal to this Court (M.A. 156 of 1957). By decision dated 30th of March, 1960, this Court did not accept the contention of the Petitioner that as the scheme had been settled as a result of voluntary offer by the Petitioner, he was entitled to withdraw from the offer before that scheme was really settled. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. On 31st of March, 1959, steps were taken by the Commissioner of Endowments u/s 35 of the Act for disqualifying the Petitioner for several alleged activities of breach of trust. On 11.2.60 the State Govt. ultimately disqualified the Petitioner for a period of one year. Miscellaneous Appeal No. 28 of 1960, directed against the order of disqualification came to be disposed of on 8-2-1962. On 11.2.60 the State Govt. ultimately disqualified the Petitioner for a period of one year. Miscellaneous Appeal No. 28 of 1960, directed against the order of disqualification came to be disposed of on 8-2-1962. By then, this Court found that the period of disqualification was already over and as such there was no necessity to proceed with the appeal. The Petitioner applied to the Commissioner of Endowments on 5.1.1966 (Miscellaneous Petition No. 1 of 66) pointing out the mis-management in the institution governed by the scheme and asked for replacement of some of the members of the Trust Board as also the Executive Officer and contended that there was no justification for the Commissioner to have altered the scheme proposed by the Petitioner or settled and published by the Commissioner. The appointment of the Executive Office was challenged as being without authority of law. On 23-12-1966, the Commissioner found its Executive Officer technically guilty of certain chargee and let him off with a warning. On 13-2-1270 the Trust Board resolved as follows: (1) The Executive officer failed to convene meetings of the Board as required by the scheme ; (2) The management was gradually deteriorating and the affairs of the math were not being attended to by the Executive Officer (3) The scheme does not confer substantial powers of management on the Trust Board and as such the Trust Board is not in a position to function properly; (4) The original purpose of the scheme has been frustrated; and (5) The management of the math be restored to the Mahant. Several acts of mismanagement of the Executive Officer were appended in a schedule. On 24th of March, 1970, the Commissioner of Endowments called upon the President of the Board of Trustees to explain as to why suitable action may not be taken against him on account of two chargee indicated therein and on 27-4-1970, a regular proceeding u/s 35 of the Act was initiated and five specific charges were communicated to the Petitioner. On 28th of April, 1970, the Commissioner of Endowments gave the following direction: The hereditary Trustee of the above Institution (Petitioner) is hereby directed to remain at Bhubaneswar in the branch math and to go to Puri only on special occasions. On 28th of April, 1970, the Commissioner of Endowments gave the following direction: The hereditary Trustee of the above Institution (Petitioner) is hereby directed to remain at Bhubaneswar in the branch math and to go to Puri only on special occasions. He is not to stay at Puri since his presence is not congenial to the Executive Officer and his staff to work there because of the behaviour of the Mohant. On 28.5.1970, the Executive Officer issued a letter to the Petitioner informing him that with effect from 17-5-1970, under orders of the Commissioner of Endowments, the Vikshya to which the Petitioner was entitled has been stopped. On 13.6.1970, which was communicated on the 18th, the Commissioner of Endowments passed the following order: In supersession of all the previous orders read above, Sri Section Barik, the present Executive Officer of the above institution, is allowed to have his head quarters at Bhubaneswar in view of the nuisance created by the Mahant and for other facilities here at Bhubaneswar. He may shift the office to one of the rented houses with 15 days hence. The relationship between the Petitioner on the one hand and the Executive Officer and his employees on the other gradually became strained. The Petitioner alleges that in such dispute the Commissioner sided against the Petitioner. 3. The Commissioner of Endowments in his counter affidavit has alleged that the appointment an of Executive Officer became necessary as the management of the institution was in a chaotic condition and, therefore, the Executive Officer had been appointed. The scheme had been modified from time to time u/s 42(6) of the Act and if the Petitioner was aggrieved by such amendment, it was open to him to challenge the amendment by filing of an appeal. It was further alleged that the Petitioner had mis-spent and misappropriated funds of the endowment. It is true, he is entitled to allowance at the rates specified in the Scheme, but the audit report shows that the Petitioner has drawn sums far in excess of what is due to him. Therefore, he is not entitled to any further amounts. A proceeding u/s 35 of the Act has been initiated and is pending against the Petitioner. 4. Therefore, he is not entitled to any further amounts. A proceeding u/s 35 of the Act has been initiated and is pending against the Petitioner. 4. The reliefs which the Petitioners has sought in the writ application are as follows: (1) for a direction that the Petitioner be treated as the hereditary Trustee and full qualified Trustee and to restore the full charge of the math and its properties to the Petitioner; and (2) for a direction that the Petitioner be paid all his arrear dues to which he is entitled. Two questions therefore, have to be decided to find out whether the Petitioner is entitled to the reliefs prayed for. They are: (i) Whether the Petitioner can be restored full powers of administration; and (2) Whether the Petitioner has any dues in terms of the scheme to be paid to him. 5. Soon after the Petitioner had been recognised as Mahant, he came forward with a scheme of management. It is the contention of Mr. Mohanty for the Petitioner that the proposal which was given by the Petitioner in the form of a scheme of management was not one in terms of Section 42 of the Act. It is the offer made by the Petitioner which had in terms been accepted. Therefore, Sub-section (6) of Section 42 of the Act would not be applicable to such a scheme. A scheme based upon offer and acceptance and not made in terms of Section 42 of the Act, was not open to be unilaterally altered. There may be some force in this contention, but it is not open to be agitated in view of the clear finding of this Court in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 156 of 1957, wherein it has been held: ...There is no allegation at all that the Mahant is guilty of any acts of mismanagement. It may be that being too young he wants to share the 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. It may be that being too young he wants to share the 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 has expressed that a scheme was necessary in the interest 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.... The Scheme then settled was thus found to be one u/s 42 of the Act. Even in the present writ application that scheme has been referred to as a statutory one under the Act. We shall, therefore, not permit the contention of Mr. Mohanty to stand that the scheme then settled was not a statutory one. The Scheme has been modified in exercise of powers under Sub-section (6) of Section 42 of the Act and the correctness of such modification was open to appeal under the Act. But the Petitioner has not challenged the same. At this belated stage, he is not entitled to invoke our extraordinary jurisdiction for delation of such modification. 6. That, however, cannot be the end of the matter. It has been found in the miscellaneous appeal referred to above that no acts of mismanagement had ever been alleged against the Petitioner by the time the offer came from him in 1956. A Scheme has been framed which, it is contended, has not fulfiled the purpose, keeping which in view the Scheme was offered by the Petitioner and accepted by the Commissioner. It is not the intention of the statute that the scheme need be a permanent feature. Legislative intention seems to be apparent that the Scheme is intended to be temporary in nature and is required to bold the field so long as it is necessary for the purpose for which It is settled Rights of management is regulated in the manner stipulated in the scheme and the Bole purpose of the scheme is the betterment of the math. The Scheme seems to have been put into force for more than 10 years. The Scheme seems to have been put into force for more than 10 years. In the mean time, there have been various complaints against the Executive Officer, against administrative interference and of several other mismanagements, both by the Petitioner as also employees of the math. The resolution which we have referred to of the Board of Trustees of 1970, also reveals the unsatisfactory situation of the management of the math. Admittedly the right of management vests in the Mahant and the scheme is intended to regulate that right as and when the management is found not to be appropriate. In view of the unsatisfactory state of affairs it is time to consider whether the scheme need at all continue, or continue in a changed form, or the management of the institution should be restored to the Petitioner completely by annulling the scheme. We cannot lose sight of the fact that a proceeding u/s 35 of the Act is pending against the Petitioner. Before any modification in the scheme can be taken up, or question of annulling the scheme and restoring the management of the institution to the Petitioner can be thought of that proceeding u/s 35 of the Act must be closed and it must be decided in accordance with law whether the Petitioner has the disqualifications of which he is charged. It has been pending for about two years now. In the interest of parties and of the endowment, we think it appropriate to direct the Commissioner to dispose of the proceeding within three months from the date of receipt of the order. Mr. M.S. Mohanty for the Petitioner has undertaken before us that the Petitioner would co-operate is having the proceeding closed in accordance with law within the time indicated by us. After that proceeding is closed, if the Petitioner is not found guilty of any serious charges, the Commissioner must take up an enquiry to find out whether the administration of the institution must continue to be regulated by the scheme or the Scheme must come to an end. That should be done within a further period of six months. If the Commissioner is satisfied, after giving reasonable opportunity to the Petitioner and others interested, that there is no justification for continuing the scheme because the Petitioner is able to manage his institution, management must be restored to the Petitioner and the scheme should be cancelled. That should be done within a further period of six months. If the Commissioner is satisfied, after giving reasonable opportunity to the Petitioner and others interested, that there is no justification for continuing the scheme because the Petitioner is able to manage his institution, management must be restored to the Petitioner and the scheme should be cancelled. If, however, it is found that the management should continue in terms of a scheme, it shall also be open to the Commissioner within that period to decide whether it should be the old scheme or suitable amendment are necessary for the purpose of effectively managing the institution. In that case suitable modifications shall be made in exercise of powers under Sub-section (6) of Section 42 of the Act. 7. Next comes the question of the Petitioner?s claim for payment in terms of the present scheme. The audit report has been placed before us to justify the stand of the Commissioner of Endowments that the Petitioner has drawn more than what is due. The audit report has not yet been finalised and the Commissioner must, therefore, hear the Petitioner and take a final decision in the matter. If any amounts are found due to the Petitioner, learned Counsel for the Commissioner has agreed before us, that the same would be paid within a month of the finding of the Commissioner that any amount is due. We shall, therefore, call upon the Commissioner of Endowments to offer reasonable opportunity to the Petitioner to satisfy him about the incorrectness of the report and justify his claim that he is entitled to receive some money from the Trust fund. We shall, therefore, direct the Commissioner to enquire into this aspect of the matter within three months from the date of receipt of the writ. The Petitioner shall be afforded reasonable opportunity to substantiate his claim. 8. We accordingly allow the writ application is terms of the directions indicated above. Let a writ of mandamus issue to the Commissioner to act in accordances with our decision. We make no order as to costs. B.K. Ray, J. 9. I agree.