JUDGMENT : P.K. Mohanty, J. - The Petitioner seaks for a direction to opp. parties 2 and 3 to enter into an agreement allowing him to sell 'Ghia Dipa' as well as 'Sankha Sindur' in the premises of the deity 'Dakheswari Bhagabati' Banpur under Annexures-2 and 3 by cancelling the auction settled in favour of opp. party No. 4. 2. The short facts of the petitioner's case is that the deity 'Bhagabati Thakurani' situated at Banapur in the district of Khurda is managed by a Board of Trustees. Devotees from all over the country used to come for Darshan of the deity and as a token of offer, they used to offer 'Juan Bhog', Ghia Dipa, agarbatti, bangles, Vermilion and other such puja articles, it is assessed that since the income of the deity was reduced due to settlement of the lands in favour of the tenants under the O.L.R. Act, the Management, in order to augment the finance, auctions the right-to sell Ghia Dipa, Sankha Sindur and other such article's within the premises of the temple and settles (he same with the highest bidder. The petitioner being the highest bidder for the year 1994-95, was settled with the same and he had no arrears. But, however, it is alleged that opp. parties 2 and 3 without taking into account the income by way of rent, decided to bifurcate the items separating auction of Ghia Dipa from Sankha Sindur and other items. A notice for auction was published on 18.3.1996 for Ghia Dipa fixing 22.3.1996 as the date of auction vide Annexure-2. Another notice for Sankha, Mali, Chudi and other articles was published vide Annexure-3. It is alleged that in response to the notice in Annexure-2, the auction was held but as none of the bidders quoted the off set price fixed by opp. party No. 2 the auction was shifted to 26.3.1996 and even then none of the bidders could come up to the off set price. However, the petitioner expressed his willingness to take the "Ghia Dipa" at Rs. 160/- per day and requested opp. parties 2 and 3 for settlement of the said right in his favour by his application under Annexure-6. It is alleged that on 29.3.1996, the petitioner also filed an application before the opp. party No. 2 to allot him all the items and he offered a price of Rs. 160/- per day and requested opp. parties 2 and 3 for settlement of the said right in his favour by his application under Annexure-6. It is alleged that on 29.3.1996, the petitioner also filed an application before the opp. party No. 2 to allot him all the items and he offered a price of Rs. 250/- per day, which according to the petitioner, is more than the amount fetched due to bifurcation of the items. The right to sell Sankha Sindur was settled with opp. party No. 4 at Rs. 40/- per day and the right to sell Ghia Dipa was settled with the petitioner at Rs. 158/- per day and thus, the total amount came to Rs. l98/- as against which the offer made by the petitioner being Rs. 250/- for both the items, the deity was sustaining a loss of Rs. 52/- per day because of the wrong decision of the Management. The petitioner alleges mala fide, favouritism and illegality committed by the Management for obvious reasons. 3. On notice being served, opp. party No. 2 has filed a comprehensive counter affidavit challenging the maintainability of the petition inasmuch as on the ground that the petitioner having not participated at the time of auction and having not taken part in the bid pursuant to Annexure-3, the auction having been knocked down in favour of opp. party No. 4 and the agreement having been entered into between opp. party No. 2 and opp. party No. 4 the said opp. parties are doing the business. These opp. parties state that it is true that earlier the shops for sale of Ghia Dipa and Sankha Sindur were being auctioned together but it was found that the auction purchasers committed irregularity in payment of the daily rates and sold sub-standard and inferior quality of articles to the devotees, which is detrimental to the interest of the devotees as well as the institution and therefore, the Management decided to put both the shops of Ghia Dipa and Sankha Sindur to auction separately. The proposal was duly approved by the Commissioner of Endowments. It is stated that after the settlement was made with opp. party No. 4, the petitioner made an application requesting opp. party No. 2 to settle both the shops for a sum of Rs. 250/- per day. The proposal was duly approved by the Commissioner of Endowments. It is stated that after the settlement was made with opp. party No. 4, the petitioner made an application requesting opp. party No. 2 to settle both the shops for a sum of Rs. 250/- per day. The petitioner availed the benefit of Ghia Dipa shop on negotiation and he having not taken part in the auction for Sankha Sindur shop, it is stated that he has no right for settlement of the same, in his favour. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records it transpires that the petitioner was settled with Ghia Dipa shop for an amount of Rs. 158/- per day on negotiation and has executed an agreement with opp. party No. 2 for a period of one year with effect from 1.4.1996. Opp. party No. 4 had participated in bid and being the highest bidder the Sankha Sindur shop was awarded to him and he has also executed an agreement for one year on 30.3.1996 with effect from 1.4.1996. The petitioner has not taken part in the auction for the Sankha Sindur shop and the highest bidder opp. party No. 4 having been settled with the shop in question the Management cannot be faulted nor there has been any illegality or infirmity in the settlement. 5. It is the further submission of Sri J.M. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner, that due to the unwise and motivated action of the Management, opp. party Nos. 2 and 3, in bifurcating the two shops and putting it separately to auction the deity has suffered a loss of income at least to the tune of Rs. 52/- per day and the opp. parties are squarely responsible for such loss and therefore the Court should consider this aspect of the matter in issuing appropriate direction in the greater interest of the institution and of the devotees at large. This contention needs consideration. It is true that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the action of the Management has been found not to be motivated, mala fide or illegal but the fact that the 'Deity' has suffered a loss, nothing tangible has also been placed on record to show that the opp. This contention needs consideration. It is true that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the action of the Management has been found not to be motivated, mala fide or illegal but the fact that the 'Deity' has suffered a loss, nothing tangible has also been placed on record to show that the opp. parties 2 and 3 have taken any effective steps to maintain quality and standard of 'Ghia Dipa' or the other puja articles sold in the shops for a greater satisfaction of the devotees. 6. These opp. parties in their counter affidavit have also not made any positive satement that the quality and standard of the puja articles sold in these shops have improved to demonstrate that the decision of the Management on such consideration has yielded result. In that view of the matter, we direct that opp. parties 2 and 3 should give a serious thought over the matter and use their discretion for augmenting the income and at the same time at least maintaining the quality and the standard of 'puja articles' sold in these shops, if not improving the same, while putting the shops to auction for the future years and whether or not separate auction of these shops would best serve the interest of the 'Deity' and act accordingly. 7. In the result, we find no cogent reason for interfering in the matter and accordingly the writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. P.C. Naik, J. 8. I agree.