JUDGMENT : A. Pasayat, J. - Order passed by the Secretary to Government of Orissa, Law Department in purported exercise of power u/s 19(5) of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 (in short, the 'Act') is assailed in this writ application. 2. The background facts in a nutshell are as follows : On 4-12-1985 an application was filed by Sri Pranab Kishore Bharati Goswami (petitioner No. 1) as Mahanta of Bharati Math, Bhubaneswar before the Commissioner of Endowments, Orissa (in short, the 'Commissioner') u/s 19 (1) of the Act with a prayer for permission to sell disputed land comprising 13.54 acres. It was stated that the land was lying fallow without giving much yield and income and was situated at a fairly long distance from Bhubaneswar. It was difficult on the part of the Mahanta to look after the property and possibility of the land being encroached upon by outsiders existed. It was stated that the market price that can be fatched per acre in respect of the land in question would be about Rs. 10,000/-. It was stated that in order to meet the monthly expenses and the repairs of the Matha premises, a substantial amount was necessary to be raised, and therefore, permission was necessary to be granted. By order dated 3-3:1986, the Commissioner dealt with the matter in O. A. No. 176 of 1985 (II) directing a report to be called for from the Inspector of Endowments and for issuance of notice by publication inviting objection through the concerned Inspector fixing 4-4-1986 to be the date of appearance and objection. On that date the inspector of Endowments" submitted his report indicating that the market value of the land would be between Rs. 11,000/- to Rs. 12,000/- per acre. After receipt of the report, tine Commissioner of Endowments examined the application on 20-5-1986 Certain persons made prayer to be impleaded as objectors. Though the applicant stated that the value would be around Rs. 12,000/ per acre, one of the witnesses examined on behalf of the objectors stated that value of the land would be between" Rs." 1.5 laks and Rs. 2, lakhs. Order was passed on 23-9-1986 by the Commissioner granting sanction for sale. Though the applicant stated that the value would be around Rs. 12,000/ per acre, one of the witnesses examined on behalf of the objectors stated that value of the land would be between" Rs." 1.5 laks and Rs. 2, lakhs. Order was passed on 23-9-1986 by the Commissioner granting sanction for sale. It was stated in the order that the sale would be beneficial for the Math and the valuation given by the Inspector of Endowments was accepted, it was stipulated that the auction was two be held in presence of the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments and the order was to remain valid for a period of six months after the period of appeal and revision is over. Finally, 13.454 acre of land was auctioned at Rs. 12,000/-per acre and the total amount came to Rs. 1,65,484/-. A copy of the sanction order passed by the Commissioner was sent to the State Government as required u/s 19(3) and was received by it on 8-10-1986, and the order was published on 14-11-1986.The auction as required under Rule 4(2)of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Rules,1959(in short the Rules)took place on 14-11-1986.There were six participants. Shri A.K. Das Patnaik, the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, who conducted the auction certified that the auction was closed after observing al! formalities and the petitioner No. 2 Shri Pratap Pattnaik was the highest bidder and the offered rate was Rs. 12,300/- per acre. Petitioner No.1 executed four separate sale-deeds in respect of 12.72 acres of land on 19-11-1986, 24-11-1986, 26-11-1986 and 3-12-1986 in favour of auction-purchaser (petitioner No. 2). Against the order of the Commissioner dated 29-9-1986 authorising sale, an appeal was filed before the Secretary to the Government of Orissa, Law Department by Biswanath Behera, ' Jairam Das, Pahali Rout son of Bhramar Rout and Pahali Rout, son of Dharama Rout purportedly u/s 19(4) of the Act. The said appeal filed on 27-11-1986 was numbered as Appeal No. 12 of 1986. Pratap Pattnaik, the auction purchaser was hot impleaded in the appeal proceeding. Another appeal was filed on 5-9-1988 by Surendra Kumar Ojha (opp. party No. 7) and Krushna Chandra Das (opp. party No. 8) which was numbered as Appeal No. 4 of 1980. In the said appeal, petitioner No. 1, the Commissioner, and the appellants in the other appeal were impleaded as respondents. Another appeal was filed on 5-9-1988 by Surendra Kumar Ojha (opp. party No. 7) and Krushna Chandra Das (opp. party No. 8) which was numbered as Appeal No. 4 of 1980. In the said appeal, petitioner No. 1, the Commissioner, and the appellants in the other appeal were impleaded as respondents. Both the appeals were heard by the then Secretary to the Government of Orissa. Law Department. A proceeding was initiated styling it to be a suo motu revision proceeding and by judgment dated 23-9-1991 the order dated 23-9-1986 passed by the Commissioner was quashed and the matter was remanded to him with a direction that he should dispose of the application filed by petitioner No. 1 u/s 19 of the Act after making necessary inquiry in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. The appeal No. 12 of 1986 was treated as a revision and the proceedings were recorded in the file relating to the said appeal. 3. The basis for interference with the order passed by the Commissioner, as evident from the order of the Secretary is that due and proper procedure was not followed and there was a collusion to grab the property at a ridiculously low value. It was observed that the appeal filed by Biswanath Behera, and others was barred by limitation, but the period for exercise of revisional power by the State Government had not expired, and the same would have expired on 6-1-1987, and therefore, it was open to the State Government to treat the appeal memo, filed on 27-11-1986 as a revision registered u/s 19(5) of the Act. It was further observed that assuming that it was not permissible to treat the appeal filed by Biswanath Behera and others on 27-11-1986 to be a revision u/s 19(5), the State Government had power to exercise power of suo motu revision at the point of time, and in view of the direction of the Endowment Commissioner that the order shall remain valid within a period of six months after the period of appeal and revision is over, it was to take effect only after expiry of the period of apppeal and revision. The sale of the land on 14-11-1986 having been effected within ninety days from the date of the impugned order is void ab initio. The sale of the land on 14-11-1986 having been effected within ninety days from the date of the impugned order is void ab initio. being wholly without authority, as the order of the Endowment Commissioner was not in operation on that date. Accordingly, the provisions of Section 19(5) of the Act were applied. The valuation was held to be patently low and the order of the Commissioner was characterised as absolutely slipshod, cryptic and based on no reasons. 4. According to the petitioners, initiation of the suo motu revision proceeding was without any sanction of law, and there is no provision far treating an appeal filed by somebody as a revision. In any event, initiation of the proceeding was beyond the prescribed period of limitation and it has no sanctity in law. The learned counsel for State, however, supported the orders submitting that technicality should not stand on the way of substantive justice. A deity is a perpetual minor, and interest of concerned religious institution cannot be overlooked while considering the question of technicality. According to him, the interest of institution is paramount, and considering the apparently ridiculous low valuation at which the property was sold, the Secretary was justified in interfering with the same. 5. For resolving the controversy, a look at Section 19 which deals with alienation of immovable trust property is necessary. The provision reads as follows : "13. Alienation of-immovable trust property. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force no transfer by exchange, sale or mortgage and no lease for a term exceeding five years of any immovable property belonging to or given or endowed for the purpose of, any religious institution, shall be made unless it it is sanctioned by the Commissioner as being necessary or beneficial to the institution and no such transfer shall be valid or operative unless it is so sanctioned. (2) In according such sanction, the Commissioner may declare it to be subject to such conditions and directions as he may deem necessary regarding the utilisation of the amount raised by the transaction, the investment thereof and in the case of a mortgage/regarding the discharge of the same within a reasonable period. (2) In according such sanction, the Commissioner may declare it to be subject to such conditions and directions as he may deem necessary regarding the utilisation of the amount raised by the transaction, the investment thereof and in the case of a mortgage/regarding the discharge of the same within a reasonable period. (3) A copy of the order made by the Commissioner under this sanction shall be communicated to the State Government and to the trustee and shall be published in such manner as may be prescribed. . (4) The trustee may, within thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and any person having interest may, within thirty days from the date of publication of the order, appeal to the State Government to modify the order or set it aside: Provided that appeals from the orders communicated or . published. prior to the date of commencement of the Orissa Hindu Religious: Endowment (Amendment) Act, 1980 shall : lie within a period of three months from the date of communication or, as the case, may be, publication of the order or within a period of thirty days from the commencement of the said Act whichever period expires earlier. (5) In any case where appeal has not been made to the State Government it appears to the State Government, that the consideration fixed in respect of the transfer by exchange, sale, mortgage or lease for a term exceeding five years of any immovable property is inadequate, they may, within ninety days from the date of receipt of the order communicated to them under Sub-Section (3) or the date of the publication of the order whichever date is later, call for the record of the case from the Commissioner and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, revise the order of the Commissioner: Provided that in any case where the transfer has not been effected in pursuance of the order of the Commissioner under Sub-section (1), the State Government may exercise the aforesaid power even after the expiry of ninety days from the date of such order. (6) The State Government may, by order, stay execution of the deed of transfer in respect of the immovable property which form the subject-matter of an appeal or revision till the disposal of the appeal, or as the case may be, the revision. (6) The State Government may, by order, stay execution of the deed of transfer in respect of the immovable property which form the subject-matter of an appeal or revision till the disposal of the appeal, or as the case may be, the revision. (7) The order of the Commissioner made under this section shelf, subject to orders, if any, passed in an appeal or revision, be final." The trustee or an/ person having interest may, within thirty days from the date of publication of the order according sanction for transfer by exchange, sale or mortgage and lease for a term exceeding five years of any immovable property belonging to, or given or endowed for the purpose of any religious institution, prefer appeal to the State Government to modify the order or set it aside. The period of limitation for filing appeal is thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order in case of the trustee, and thirty days from the date pf publication of the order in respect of any person having interest. Sub-section (3) provides that a copy of the order made by the Commissioner u/s 19 shall be communicated to the State Government, and to the trustee and shall be published in such manner as may be prescribed. The manner of publication of the order of sanction by the Commissioner is laid down in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 of the Rules. Publication is to be made by affixture (a) on the notice board or the front door of the religious institution concerned ; (b) in a conspicuous place of the village where the property in question is situate. 6. In any case where appeal has not been made to the State Government, it appears to the State Government that the consideration fixed in respect of the transfer by way of exchange, sale mortgage or lease for the fixed term is inadequate, they may within ninety days from the date of receipt of the order communicate to them under Sub-section (3) of Section 19, or the date of the publication of the order whichever date is latter, call for the record of the case from the Commissioner and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, revise the order of the Commissioner. Proviso to Sub-section (5) of. Proviso to Sub-section (5) of. Section 19 provides that in any case where the transfer has not been effected in pursuance of the order of the Commissioner under Sub-section (1). the State Government may exercise the aforesaid power even after the expiry of ninety days from the date of such order. Under Sub-section (6), the State Government may by order stay execution of the deed of transfer in respect of the immovable property which form the subject-matter of an appeal or revision till the disposal of the appeal, or as the case may be, the revision. It is apparent from a bare reading -of Sub-Sections (4) and (5), that the period for filing an appeal is thirty days, and for exercise of suo motu revision, it is ninety days from the date of receipt of the order communicated to the State Government under Sub-Section (3), or the date of publication of the order whichever date is later. There, however, transfer has not been effected in pursuance of the order of Commissioner under Sub-section (1), the State Government has power to exercise the revisional power even after expiry of ninety days from the date of such order. . Admittedly no appeal was filed within thirty days either by the trustee or any person having interest. It is to be noted that there is no provision for condonation of delay in case of filing of an appeal after the prescribed period. Under Rule 4 (2), the order of Commissioner of Endowments dated 23-9-1986 was published, and the same was received by the Law Department on 8-10-1986. On 27-11-1986 opp. party Nos. 3 to 6 filed an appeal which was registered as First Appeal No. 12 of 1986, and appeal of opp. party Nos. 7 and 8 filed on 5-9-1988 was registered as First Appeal No. 4 of 1988. Both the. appeals were apparently preferred after the period of limitation, and rightly the Secretary, Law Department treated the appeals to be barred by limitation. 7. The only question that remains for consideration is whether there was scope for exercising suo motu revisional power, and whether such exercise was done within the prescribed period of limitation. Revisional power was to be exercised by the State within ninety- days from 8-10-1986, i.e., by .6-1-1987. 7. The only question that remains for consideration is whether there was scope for exercising suo motu revisional power, and whether such exercise was done within the prescribed period of limitation. Revisional power was to be exercised by the State within ninety- days from 8-10-1986, i.e., by .6-1-1987. Undisputedly, the revisional power was not exercised within ninety days and was exercised on 23-9-1991, i. e., after about four years ten months from the date of receipt of order of the Commissioner. The Secretary has applied proviso to Sub-section (5) of Section 19. Stress was laid by him on the direction of the Commissioner to the effect that the order shall remain valid within a period of six months after the period of appeal and revision is over, and it was concluded that the order of the Commissioner was to take effect only after expiry of the period of appeal or revision, i. e., after 90 days of the date of order. According to- him, sale having been effected on 14-11-1986 within ninety days of the order was void ab initio because the order of the Commissioner permitting sale was not in operation on that date. The conclusion to say the least, is wholly misconceived. The order of the Commissioner did not postulate that no transfer can be effected before expiry of the appeal or revision period. What was apparently meant to be conveyed that the order would be valid for a period of ninety days available for revision plus six months thereafter. The period for preferring appeal expires after thirty days and for revision after ninety days. Taking the longer period of ninety days validity of order was for ninety days plus six months. It did not by any stretch of imagination put any rectriction on sale before the expiry of ninety days. To accept such an interpretation would create an incongruous situation". If the interpretation put by the Secretary is accepted, it would mean that a sale could have taken place only after ninety days plus, six months. No order would have been in operation authorising sale after such period. the Secretary was not justified in his conclusion that the sale effected on 14-11-1986 was void on the ground that it took place prior to operative period stipulated by the Commissioner. On the contrary, it was perfectly valid being sanctioned by the Commissioner. No order would have been in operation authorising sale after such period. the Secretary was not justified in his conclusion that the sale effected on 14-11-1986 was void on the ground that it took place prior to operative period stipulated by the Commissioner. On the contrary, it was perfectly valid being sanctioned by the Commissioner. The proviso to Sub-Section (5) of Section 19 could not have been applied. The auction took place on 14-11.-1986 and the sale deeds were executed on 19-11-1986; 21-11-1996, 26-11-1986 and |-12-1986. The proviso has no application because transfer had been effected pursuant to the order of the Commissioner, and therefore, the question of exercising any revisional power after expiry of ninety days from the. date of order did not arise. The, impugned order of Secretary, Low Department is therefore clearly untenable and indefensible. It is submitted by the teamed counsel for State that welfare of the institution is paramount. It. cannot be lost sight of that mandatory period for availing the appellate and ravisional remedy has been prescribed. It is conceded that after that period, .there is no scope for resorting to such remedy. No reason has been indicated as to why suo motu revisional power was not. exercised by the State Government within the prescribed period in respect of the order communicated under Sub-Section (3), though such, a course was open to be adopted. Having not offered any explanation for the belated attempt to take shelter under an inapplicable provision, the plea cannot be accepted and maintained. When it was pointed out to the learned counsel for petitioner No.2 that the interest of the institution is involved, he voluntered to pay a sum of Rs.. 1,00,000/-(one lakh) over and above the consideration already paid within two months from today. He has filed an affidavit to that effect., This offer is voluntary and is stated to be in the interest of institution. We direct that the payment be made as undertaken. The writ application is allowed. The impugned order of the Secretary, Law Department vide Annexure 18 is quashed. No costs. R.K. Dash, J. I agree. Final Result : Allowed