P. K. MOHANTY, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER No. 2 who claims to be the hereditary trustee of Sri Raghunath Jew, a public temple of village Totapada in the district of Bhadrak, challenges the order of the Addl. Asst. Commissioner of Endowments, Cuttack Zone in Annexure 3 appointing opp. parties 4 to 8 as interim non-hereditary trustee of the temple under Section 27 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "o. H. R. E. Act" ). ( 2 ) PETITIONER No. 1 is the public deity, Sri Raghunath Jew, bije Totapada, P. S. and Tahasil Chandbali in the district of Bhadrak and petitioner No. 2 claims to be its hereditary trustee said to have been founded by his ancestors and the petitioner's family members have been in management and Seba Puja of the deity by hereditary succession. The Endowment authorities have recognised petitioner No. 2 as the person in management of the institution and in the year 1982 when the dispute arose, the then Raje of Manika had instituted a case under Section 43 of the O. H. R. E. Act for a declaration that he is the heriditary trustee of the case institution along with 500 and odd such institutions of Kanika estate. The Raja of Kanika was declared as heriditary trustee in O. A. No. 15 of 1982 under Section 41 of the Act by the Additional Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Cuttack. But however, in an appeal filed by some outsiders the order was set aside and case was remanded for fresh disposal by the Asst. Commissioner. However, the case after remand was dismissed for default but nothing was decided on merit. It is stated that later petitioner No. 2 was appointed as interim trustee of certain institutions including the case institution by the learned Commissioner of Endowments under Section 7 of the Act and thus, the Management of the institution solely vested on petitioner No. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that in absence of judicial determination under Section 41 of the Act regarding the nature and character of the case institution, petitioner No. 2 instituted a fresh proceeding under Section 41 of the Act for a declaration that the institution is a public temple within the meaning of the Act and that he is the heriditary trustee thereof. The petitioner also filed an application under Section 8 (2) of the Act for appointing him as an interim trustee till final decision in the application under Section 41 of the Act, which was registered as O. A. No. 14 of 1995. But during pendency of such proceedings, the learned Addl. Asst. Commissioner of Endowments under a misconception of law and with a mala fide intention, in his administrative capacity, appointed opposite parties, 4 to 8 as non-hereditary trustees or the case institution, knowing fully well that petitioner No. 2 is continuing with uninterrupted management of the institution which is contrary to the decisions of this Court and therefore the present writ petition. ( 3 ) OPPOSITE parties 4 to 8 have filed a common counter affidavit refuting the claims of the petitioners, inter alia, on the ground that a writ petition is not maintainable since an efficacious alternative remedy by way of a revision is available to the petitioners under Section 9 of the Act before the Commissioner against the impugned order. The claim is resisted on the grounds that petitioner No. 2 filed O. A. No. 14 of 1982 under Section 41 of the Act claiming hereditary trusteeship of 608 institutions which was allowed by an ex parte order dated 7-7-1984, but the same was set aside in First Appeal No. 7 of 1985 remanding the case for retrial. The petitioner having not appeared and prosecuted the case after remand, the same was dismissed for default for which a Misc. Case to restore the original case was filed. The Misc. Case also was dismissed for default and therefore the second application under Section 41 of the Act for the self same relief was not maintainable. It is also asserted that there is no provision for enquiry under the Act and the Rules before appointment of non hereditary trustees and since the petitioner's claim for hereditary trusteeship has been dismissed, he is not entitled to any relief. If is further stated that the petitioner's appointment as interim trustee under Section 7 is subject to Section 27 of the Act and the interim order becomes non -existent after passing of an order under Section 27 thereof. If is further stated that the petitioner's appointment as interim trustee under Section 7 is subject to Section 27 of the Act and the interim order becomes non -existent after passing of an order under Section 27 thereof. An appeal is provided against the order of the Commissioner in the High Court as against the order setting aside the declaration of a hereditary trustee and since the petitioner did not prefer any appeal against the order of setting aside such declaration and the order of remand remitting the matter for fresh disposal, inasmuch as the original case having been dismissed for default so also the Misc. Case for restoration of the original application, a second application under Section 41 of the Act and was not maintainable and hence misconceived. ( 4 ) IN view of the rival contentions raised at the Bar, main questions that emerges for consideration are; (I) Whether before passing an order under Section 27 of the O. H. R. E. Act an enquiry with regard to the existence of any hereditary trusteeship, is a precondition and whether the appointment of non hereditary trustees have been made by the Additional Assistant Commissioner without conducting any such enquiry in the present case ? and (II) Whether the order under Section 27 of the O. H. R. E. Act could have been passed in view of the pendency of the applications under Section 41 and Section 8 (2) of the Act before the Endowment authority ? ( 5 ) IN order to appreciate the contentions, Section 27 of the O. H. R. E. Act needs elaborate consideration and it may be extracted hereunder. :"non-HEREDITARY trustees, their number and appointment - (1) The Assistant Commissioner shall, in cases where there is no hereditary trustee, with the prior approval of the State Government appoint non-hereditary trustee in respect of each religious institution other than maths and specific endowments attached there to and in making such appointments, the Assistant Commissioner shall have due regard to the claims of persons belonging to the religious denomination for whose benefit the said institution is chiefly maintained. (2) A non-hereditary trustee shall, unless he is sooner removed or dismissed or otherwise ceases to be trustee, hold office for a period of two years from the date of his appointment :provided that the Assistant Commissioner may, for sufficient reasons to be recorded by him, from time to time, extend the aforesaid term of a trustee so, however, that the total extension so granted shall in no cases exceed six months in the aggregate. (3) Every non-hereditary trustee holding office immediately prior to the date of commencement of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments (Amendment) Act, 1978 shall cease to hold office as such on the completion of a period of two years from the date of his appointment or on the expiration of three months from the date of commencement of the said Act, whichever is later. "a Full Bench of this Court in Dhadi Parida (and after him) Sunderi Parida v. Commr. of Consolidation, Orissa reported in (1996) 81 Cut LT 477, while considering the scope of Sections 27 and 8b of the Act regarding appointment of non-hereditary trustee, have held that the main purpose in vesting the power to appoint a non-hereditary trustee is to ensure proper management of the affairs of the religious institution including its properties and to avoid mismanagement and misappropriation. The enquiry in such a proceeding should be of a summary nature. The nature of enquiry will depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. The Full Bench held that the Assistant Commissioner is to decide the nature of enquiry to be held in the case, since it is for him to be satisfied whether there is hereditary trustee in the institution or not. It has further been held that if the order of Assistant Commissioner is vitiated on account of arbitrariness, it is open to the person concerned to move the Commissioner in revision. The Full Bench considered elaborately the earlier decision of the Court rendered by the Full Bench in Khetramohan Rout v. Sri Sri Mogeswar Mahadev (1992) 74 Cut LT 969 and the other decisions on the point. A bare reading of Section 27 of the O. H. R. E. Act, makes is abundantly clear that while considering the appointment of a non-hereditary interim trustee under Section 27, the Assistant Commissioner is required to cause an enquiry whether there is hereditary trustee in the institution or not. A bare reading of Section 27 of the O. H. R. E. Act, makes is abundantly clear that while considering the appointment of a non-hereditary interim trustee under Section 27, the Assistant Commissioner is required to cause an enquiry whether there is hereditary trustee in the institution or not. This question is no more res integra. The aforesaid Full Bench decisions of this Court in Dhedi Parida (and after him) Sundari Parida v. Commr. of Consolidation Orissa reported in (1996) 81 Cut LT 477 and in Khetramohan Rout's case (supra) have set at rest the controversy as to whether an enquiry is envisaged under the Act before the Assistant Commissioner appoints a non-hereditary trustee under Section 27. An enquiry as to whether the temple has a hereditary trustee in management of the institution and whether there is no hereditary trustee at the relevant point of time is thus a precondition for exercise of power under Section 27 of the O. H. R. E. Act by the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments. However, the nature of enquiry to be conducted is for the learned Assistant Commissioner to decide. The Assistant Commissioner therefore is required under law to state the reason for arriving at the satisfaction that there is no hereditary trustee in the institution. The aggrieved party in entitled to move the Commissioner in revision under Section 9 of the Act, if the order of the Assistant Commissioner is vitiated. ( 6 ) IN the case at hand, we had called for the original file from the learned Assistant Commissioner since the impugned order under Annexure 3 (sic) does not indicate as to whether any enquiry was taken up by the Assistant Commissioner. A perusal of the file gives a sad story. Endorsement dated 2 5-2-1987 is the first order, (sic) 15-7-1980 is the second and 18-7-1980 is the third (sic) draft was prepared and thereafter letter No. 770 dated 22-4-1994 has been referred to and a piece of paper is pasted on the order sheet on which some notes are made. We are not able to appreciate the sequence and the relevance thereof. ( 7 ) THE next point for consideration is, as to whether in view of the pendency of an application under Section 41 of the Act, the learned Additional Assistant Commissioner could have exercised powers under Section 27 of the Act. We are not able to appreciate the sequence and the relevance thereof. ( 7 ) THE next point for consideration is, as to whether in view of the pendency of an application under Section 41 of the Act, the learned Additional Assistant Commissioner could have exercised powers under Section 27 of the Act. In Khetramohan Rout v. Sri Sri Mageswar Mahadev (1992 (74) Cut LT 969) (supra), the Full Bench of this Court, while considering the meaning and import of Sections 8-B, 27 and 41 of the Act after insertion of Section 8-B by Orissa Act 19 of 1976 has laid down that the Assistant Commissioner can appoint non-hereditary trustee to a religious institution other than 'math' without prior determination of a dispute case under Section 41 of the Act. The Full Bench affirmed the decision in Bairagi Pradhan v. Commr. of Hindu Religious Endowments, (1988) 1 Orissa LR 6 in part. There is nothing in Section 41 of the Act to control the power of the Assistant Commissioner under Section 27 specially in view of the insertion of Section 8-B to the Act. Thus, pendency of a petition under Section 41 of the Act does not prohibits the Assistant Commissioner from exercising his power under Section 27 of the Act to appoint a non-hereditary trustee for smooth interim management of the temple. This question may also not arise in the present case since, whether a petition under Section 41 of the Act filed by the petitioner is maintainable at all, is a matter to be decided by the Assistant Commissioner in view of the undisputed fact that the earlier application under Section 41 of the Act allowed by the Assistant Commissioner was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh hearing and such order of the Commissioner has not been challenged inasmuch as the application under Section 41 of the Act which remained pending before the learned Assistant Commissioner for fresh disposal got dismissed for non-prosecution and the application for restoration of such petition also got dismissed for default. Undisputedly, the petitioner has filed a fresh application under Section 41 of the O. H. R. E. Act. Undisputedly, the petitioner has filed a fresh application under Section 41 of the O. H. R. E. Act. However, we need not express any view on the maintainability or otherwise of such application since that is not the subject-matter of dispute in the present writ petition and the endowment authorities dealing with the application shall consider such aspect if raised in the proceeding. Suffice it to say that pendency of the application under Section 41 of the Act, thereform, does not stand on the way of the learned Additional Assistant Commissioner in exercising his powers under Section 27 of the Act and therefore the impugned order cannot be assailed on that ground also. ( 8 ) THERE is however another aspect of the matter which has a direct bearing on the merit of this case, non-hereditary trustees appointed under Section 27 (1) of the Act hold office for a period of two years from the date of such appointment subject however to the extension granted by the Assistant Commissioner for a period not exceeding six months in aggregate for sufficient reasons to be recorded by him under Section 27 (2) of the Act. In the case at hand, opp. parties 4 to 8 had been appointed by order dated 19-3-1996 (Annexure 3) and the order itself indicates that it is for a period of two years from the date of issue of the order and as such, the order has already spent its force during pendency of the present writ application. In that view of the matter, it is not necessary at the moment to interfere with the said order in having become infructuous. It is necessary to mention that an order under Section 27 of the Act is a revisable order by the Commissioner, but the petitioners without approaching the revisional authority, have approached this Court. Ordinarily, if a statutory remedy is provided for, an aggrieved party is required to approach the statutory authority against any such order, but however, on that ground at the moment the petitioners cannot be ousted from the doors of this Court, the writ petition having been admitted and ripen for hearing. ( 9 ) IN that view of the matter, we dispose of the matter with the direction that since the term of office of the non-hereditary interim trustees opp. parties 4 and 8 have already expired, the learned Addl. Asst. ( 9 ) IN that view of the matter, we dispose of the matter with the direction that since the term of office of the non-hereditary interim trustees opp. parties 4 and 8 have already expired, the learned Addl. Asst. Commissioner of Endowments, Cuttack Zone shall take appropriate steps under Section 27 of the Act for appointment, if necessary, of the non-hereditary trustees in accordance with law keeping in view the observations made in this judgment. It is further directed that he shall also deal with the application of the petitioner under Section 41 of the Act in accordance with law within a reasonable dispatch. The writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. There shall be no order as to cost in the facts and circumstances of the case. ( 10 ) P. C. NAIK, J. : -. I agree. Order accordingly.