R. K. PATRA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners in this writ application seek to assail the validity of the order dated 7-8-1998 of the Commissioner of Endowments, Orissa, Bhubaneswar (Annexure-2) constituting an interim trust board comprising opposite parties 3 to 11 as its members in respect of the institution Jasobanti Thakurani at Dasipur for a period of one year or till formation of Regular non-hereditary trust board, whichever is earlier. ( 2 ) THE case of the petitioners' is that Jasobanti Thakurani (petitioner No. 1) is an ancient village deity. It is an old temple whose origin/foundation is lost in antiquity. Some of the petitioners are recorded as marfatdaris of the deity (Annexure-1, R. O. R. of 1930 ). Petitioners 2 to 9 who belong to the Panda family have been in continuous and peaceful management of the deity for the last four generations. They have also been in cultivating possession of the land of the deity measuring Ac. 8. 86 decimals and its usufructs are being utilised for the 'seba puja' and management of the deity. The opposite parties 3 to 11 have no manner of interest in the management of the deity and have got themselves illegally appointed as interim trustees by the Commissioner. The petitioners' allegation is that the Additional Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Cuttack-opposite party No. 2 on the basis of report of the Inspector of Endowments immediately moved the Commissioner for appointment of interim trustees and basing on such recommendation the Commissioner has passed the impugned order behind their back. ( 3 ) COUNTER affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Commissioner of Endowments and Additional Assistant Commissioner of Endowments (opposite parties 1 and 2 ). Their case is that Grama Devati Jasobanti Thakurani, Dasipur belongs to the entire village. It is a public religious institution being installed by the then ruler of the erstwhile Kujang estate. Taking advantage of the fact that the lands were recorded in the name of the deity's marfatdar of the Panda family, they illegally alienated some of its properties by way of sale. The Panda family in course of time left the village and at present the 'seba puja' is being done by engaging 'pujaka' by the villagers. Taking advantage of the fact that the lands were recorded in the name of the deity's marfatdar of the Panda family, they illegally alienated some of its properties by way of sale. The Panda family in course of time left the village and at present the 'seba puja' is being done by engaging 'pujaka' by the villagers. On 7-4-1998 the villagers filed a representation before the Additional Assistant Commissioner of Endowments alleging overt acts committed by the Panda family with a further request to hold an inquiry and constitute a non-hereditary trust board. On receipt of the said representation, the Additional Assistant Commissioner of Endowments directed the Inspector of Endowments, Kendrapara to visit the institution and submit a report after holding inquiry. In obedience to the said direction, the Inspector of Endowments visited the institution on 8-5-1998 held local inquiry in presence of the villagers and submitted report on 5-6-1998 (Annexure-B ). He stated in the report that the institution is a public religious one which belongs to the entire villagers. The Additional Assistant Commissioner of Endowments was satisfied that it is a public religious institution without any trustee and the deity's properties are not being properly managed. He accordingly sent the proposal suggesting formation of a non-hereditary trust board with the opposite parties 3 to 11 as its members (Annexure-C ). The Commissioner of Endowments after going through the relevant documents was satisfied that the institution and its endowment are not being properly managed and accordingly has passed the impugned order. ( 4 ) OPPOSITE parties 3 to 11 have also filed their counter affidavit. Their case is that petitioner No. 1 is a public religious institution and petitioners 2 to 9 were never in the management of the said institution. According to them the ancestors of petitioners 7 to 9 alienated substantial portion of the deity's property for their own benefit. They did so by taking advantage of the fact that their ancestors' name was recorded in the R. O. R. of 1980. The illegal entry of the names of the ancestors of the petitioners 7 to 9 is now under challenge before the Consolidation Officer. In such state of affairs, the villagers of Dasipur filed a representation before the Additional Assistant Commissioner of Endowment bringing to his notice the illegalities committed by some of the petitioners. The illegal entry of the names of the ancestors of the petitioners 7 to 9 is now under challenge before the Consolidation Officer. In such state of affairs, the villagers of Dasipur filed a representation before the Additional Assistant Commissioner of Endowment bringing to his notice the illegalities committed by some of the petitioners. On that representation, the Inspector of Endowments was directed to inquire and submit a report which was duly done. Having regard to the report, the Additional Assistant Commissioner of Endowments suggested to constitute a non-hereditary trust board with opposite parties 3 to 11 as its members. The Commissioner after perusing the relevant records constituted the interim trust board in the interest of the deity. ( 5 ) SHRI S. Mishra-2, learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that the order of the Commissioner of Endowments constituting interim trust board is vulnerable on the following grounds :i) the petitioners were neither heard nor noticed by the Commissioner;ii) the finding of the Commissioner in the impugned order that there is no hereditary trust board is based on no evidence; andiii) the suggestion made by the Additional Assistant Commissioner of Endowments for appointment of interim trustee is the outcome of non-application of mind, inasmuch as the Inspector of Endowments whose report was the basis for such recommendation had not stated that there is no hereditary trustee. Shri Naidu, learned counsel appearing for the Endowments Commissioner and the Additional Assistant Commissioner of Endowments and Shri Bijan Ray, learned senior counsel for the Opposite parties 3 to 11 submitted that the order constituting the interim trust board was passed by the Commissioner in exercise of powers conferred under S. 7 (2) of the Act. It being an administrative order, there was no question of issuing any notice to any case. Learned counsel also submitted that the procedure for appointment of interim trust board being of summary nature, the concerned authority may adopt any procedure for the purpose. Shri Bijan Ray further submitted that the petitioners who claim to be hereditary trustees have produced on document in support of their case and admitted the origin and foundation of the institution having been lost in antiquity the succession to the office has to be established by them. According to both the learned counsel, the petitioners should be relegated to take recourse to the remedies available under the Act. According to both the learned counsel, the petitioners should be relegated to take recourse to the remedies available under the Act. Counsel for both the parties relied on two decisions of the Full Bench of this Court in Khetramohan Rout v. Sri Sri Rugeswar Mahadev (1992) 74 CIT 969 and Dasti Parida v. Commissioner of Consolidation, Orissa, 1996 (1) OLR 345. ( 6 ) FROM the records made available by Shri Naidu as well as from the consents enclosed to the writ application and counter-affidavits, it appears that the Additional Assistant Commissioner of Endowments in his letter No. 789 dated 15-7-1998 wrote to the Joint Secretary to Government of Orissa, Law Department, Bhubaneswar (Annexure-C) seeking Government's approval of the formation of non-hereditary trust board under S. 27 of the Act in respect of the deity in question. In the said letter, he stated that no trust board has ever been formed in respect of the institution under Section 27 of the Act and he suggested the names of opposite parties 3 to 11 for being taken as members of the reposed trust board. Copy of the said letter was sent to the Commissioner of Endowments in memo No. 790 dated 15-7-1998. The Commissioner in his turn wrote to the Additional Assistant Commissioner of Endowments in letter No. 9351 dated 3-8-1998 to send necessary information with regard to the properties of the deity and its annual income and to inform whether the persons to be taken as members of the trust board have the requisite qualification under S. 29 of the Act. The Additional Assistant Commissioner of Endowments in his letter No. 870 dated 5-8-1998 (Annexure-B) informed the Commissioner of Endowments that as per the report of the Inspector of Endowments, the institution has landed property to the extent of Ac. 8. 86 with annual income of Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 18,000/- and the institution in question is a public religious one without having any hereditary trustee. He also informed the Commissioner of Endowments that the persons suggested by him do not suffer from any disqualification under S. 29 of the Act for appointment of interim trustee under S. 7 of the Act. 15,000/- to Rs. 18,000/- and the institution in question is a public religious one without having any hereditary trustee. He also informed the Commissioner of Endowments that the persons suggested by him do not suffer from any disqualification under S. 29 of the Act for appointment of interim trustee under S. 7 of the Act. On receipt of the said letter, the Commissioner of Endowments passed the impugned order dated 7-8-1998 (Annexure-2) under S. 7 of the Act appointing these persons (opposite parties 3 to 11) suggested by the Additional Assistant Commissioner as members of the interim trust board "for smooth management and to protect the properties of the institution for a period of one year or till the formation of non-hereditary trust board, whichever is earlier". ( 7 ) IT is the admitted case of all the parties that the interim trust board has been formed by the Commissioner of Endowments comprising opposite parties 3 to 11 as its members in exercise of power conferred on him under Section 7 of the Act. It is also agreed at the bar that interim trust board can be formed in respect of a public religious institution having no hereditary trustee. It is, therefore, necessary to examine if the institution in question is a public religious one without any hereditary trustee. ( 8 ) IT is true that the Additional Assistant Commissioner of Endowments recommended for appointment of interim trustee under S. 7 of the Act on the basis that the institution is a public one having no hereditary trustee. The Commissioner also in the impugned order has observed that the institution is a public religious one having no hereditary trustee. It may be stated that the recommendation of the Additional Assistant Commissioner of Endowments (Annexure-D) was based on the report of the Inspector of Endowments at Annexure-B. From the reading of the said report it would appear that the Inspector of Endowments had not stated that the institution is without any hereditary trustee. There is thus no other material before the Additional Assistant Commissioner to hold that the institution is without any hereditary trustee. Consequently the decision of the Commissioner of Endowments is vitiated because there is no material available before him to hold that the institution has no hereditary trustee. There is thus no other material before the Additional Assistant Commissioner to hold that the institution is without any hereditary trustee. Consequently the decision of the Commissioner of Endowments is vitiated because there is no material available before him to hold that the institution has no hereditary trustee. ( 9 ) THE submission of Shri S. Mishra is that the petitioners ought to have been given an opportunity of hearing before the impugned order was passed, has force. The Commissioner in his affidavit and opposite parties 3 to 11 in their own affidavit have admitted that the R. O. R. of 1930 did not contain the names of the ancestors of the petitioners. Opposite parties 3 to 11 in their counter affidavit have further averred that the entry of names of the ancestors of the petitioners in the R. O. R. is under challenge before the Consolidation Officer, Thauri. The petitioners thus can be said to be persons having interest in the management of the deity and its properties. In our considered opinion, the Commissioner ought to have given an opportunity of hearing to them before he passed the impugned order. Since there is violation of the principle of natural justice, we are not inclined to relegate the petitioners to best alternative remedies available under the Act. ( 10 ) FOR the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order at Annexure-2 cannot be sustained in law which is accordingly granted. The Commissioner of Endowments is directed to consider and dispose of the matter according to law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners who are directed to appear before the Commissioner of Endowments on 8th of April, 1999 to take further instructions from him. The writ application is accordingly allowed. There would be no order as to costs. ( 11 ) B. K. DASH, J. : -. I agree. Petition allowed.