JUDGMENT : Pradipta Ray, J. - Mahanta Sri Jayaram Dash Jee Maharaj, the head of Balagandi Chhata Math, Puri filed this writ application. During the pendency of this writ application Mahanta Sri Jayaram Dash died on May 31, 1998 and has been substituted by Premananda Das Jee, who claims to have succeeded Mahanta Jayaram Dash as Maharaj, Balagandi Chhata Math. 2. It has been claimed in the writ application that Balagandi Chhata Math, Puri (hereinafter referred to as the disputed Math) is an independent private Religious Math. The disputed Math is headed by a Maharaj who accepts a chela during his life time and selects the said chela as his successor to the position of head of the Math. Mahanta Sri Jayaram Dash during his life time selected one Rama Chandra Das as his chela and successor as Maharaj. In 1956 Mahanta Sri Jayaram Dash executed a power of attorney in favour of said Rama Chandra Das. Subsequently, on May 18, 1990 Sri Jayaram Dash again executed a registered power of attorney in favour of said Rama Chandra Das. In that power of attorney dated May 18, 1990 the execution of previous power of attorney has been mentioned. Sri Jayaram Dash as head of the disputed Math sold some of the Lands of the Math to different persons and the consideration received from the purchasers have been kept in fixed deposits in the name of his constituted attorney Rama Chandra Das in the United Puri-Nimapara Central Co-operative Bank (hereinafter referred to as the Co-operative Bank). Unfortunately, Rama Chandra Das died on April 20, 1995. After death of the said constituted attorney Rama Chandra Das, Mahanta Sri Jayaram Dash became entitled to receive the amounts lying deposited in the Co-operative Bank in fixed deposits. Sri Jayaram Dash filed a petition u/s 372 of the Indian Succession Act before the Civil Judge, Puri for obtaining a Succession Certificate to withdraw the amounts lying deposited in the Co-operative Bank in the name of Rama Chandra Das. After completion of necessary enquiry the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Puri by his order dated September 19, 1995 issued a Succession Certificate in favour of the said Sri Jayaram Dash to withdraw the amounts lying in fixed deposit in the Co-operative Bank. The Succession Certificate was issued on December 5, 1995 upon payment of required stamp duty. After completion of necessary enquiry the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Puri by his order dated September 19, 1995 issued a Succession Certificate in favour of the said Sri Jayaram Dash to withdraw the amounts lying in fixed deposit in the Co-operative Bank. The Succession Certificate was issued on December 5, 1995 upon payment of required stamp duty. When Sri Jayaram Dash went to withdraw the amount on the strength of the Succession Certificate the Branch Manager of the Co-operative Bank declined to allow him to withdraw any amount as the Commissioner of Endowments by his letter No. 7011 dated March 26, 1996 prohibited withdrawal of any amount from the fixed deposits in the name of Rama Chandra Das. In view of the said order passed by the Endowment Commissioner, the Bank did not allow Sri Jayaram Dash to withdraw any amount. As the Co-operative Bank withheld payment, Sri Jayaram Dash filed this writ petition praying for directing the Co-operative Bank to allow the writ petitioner to withdraw the amounts as mentioned in the Succession Certificate. 3. The Commissioner of Endowments has passed the impugned order on the basis that the disputed Math is a Branch of Sri Torani Chhatta Math, Puri which is a public religious endowment and is under the administrative Control of the Commissioner for Religious Endowments. The Commissioner directed the Co-operative Bank not to allow any withdrawal of the fixed deposits that the money lying in fixed deposits in the name of Rama Chandra Das belonged to the Torani Math, a Public Religious Math. It appears that Rama Chandra Das was at the material point of time was the Head of the Torani Math. 4. In this writ petition the Petitioner's contention is that the disputed Math being a private religious endowment, the Commissioner for Religious Endowments has no administrative Control over the said Math and there is no material to connect disputed Math with Torani Math. Being aggrieved the Mahanta Sri Jayaram Dash filed this writ petition. 5. In pursuance of the order of this Court Mr. Rath, learned Advocate for the Commissioner of Religious Endowments has produced the records. It appears that the Commissioner issued the impugned instructions to the Bank on the basis of a report of the Inspector of Endowment, Puri-1 without making any adjudication and without sending any notice to the writ petitioner. 6. In pursuance of the order of this Court Mr. Rath, learned Advocate for the Commissioner of Religious Endowments has produced the records. It appears that the Commissioner issued the impugned instructions to the Bank on the basis of a report of the Inspector of Endowment, Puri-1 without making any adjudication and without sending any notice to the writ petitioner. 6. The records of the office of the Commissioner of Endowments reveal that a petition was filed by one Sri Damodar Mahapatra of Goudabad Sahi making allegations of misuse of properties of the disputed Math by Sri Jayaram Dash. On the basis of the said complaint, the Inspector of Endowments, Puri, Circle-1 caused an enquiry. He sent notice to the disputed Math, but the Management of the Math refused to receive the said notice on the plea that the Math is a private one and the authorities under the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 have no power, jurisdiction and control over Private Maths, like the disputed one. However, the Inspector made enquiries from different sources and submitted a report on October 30, 1996. The Inspector has also proceeded on the basis that the disputed Math is a Public Religious Math. The Endowment Commissioner acting on the basis of the said enquiry report mechanically accepted the view that the disputed Math is a Public Religious Math and issued the impugned directions to the Bank. 7. Mr. Rath, learned Advocate appearing for the Commissioner refers to Section 8-B of the Act and submits that the Commissioner has the authority to take action in respect of any institution upon his satisfaction that such institution is a religious institution within the meaning of the Act, and it is for the authorities of the concerned institution to raise dispute u/s 41 of the Act. Section 8-B of the Act has been introduced to vest the authorities named therein with power to make interim arrangement for smooth management of a religious institution inasmuch as adjudication of a dispute u/s 41 of the Act takes long time to resolve vide 1988 (1) OLR 6, (Bairagi Pradhan and Ors. v. The Commissioner of Hindu Endowments and Ors.). Before exercising his power u/s 8-B of the Act, the Commissioner is required to form an opinion on the basis of the objective materials. It cannot be his ipse dixit without any supporting material whatsoever. v. The Commissioner of Hindu Endowments and Ors.). Before exercising his power u/s 8-B of the Act, the Commissioner is required to form an opinion on the basis of the objective materials. It cannot be his ipse dixit without any supporting material whatsoever. If necessary he may be required to hold a summary enquiry. As already pointed out in the present case, there is no material on record excepting a bald statement in the enquiry report that the disputed institution is a public religious institution. The sweeping power given u/s 8-B cannot be permitted to be used arbitrarily without any basis. Moreover, Section 8-B of the Act has imposed upon the authorities mentioned therein some inherent duties and obligations. If the Commissioner or any other authority does not have necessary materials to take a view that a particular institution is a public religious institution governed by the provisions of the Act but he entertains a genuine doubt and finds it necessary to have a detailed adjudication, the concerned officer may make some interim arrangements and then refer the dispute to the Asst. Commissioner of Endowments u/s 41 of the Act without waiting for the management of the Math to raise a dispute. Even for the purpose of exercising the power u/s 8-B of the Act, the concerned officer has to record brief reasons for holding such prima facie opinion. In the present case, no reason has been assigned and the opinion appears to be based on mere surmise and conjectures. 8. The learned Advocate for the Commissioner of Endowments has not been able to show any documents or material to indicate prima facie that the disputed math is a branch of Torani Math or is any way connected with the same. There is also nothing on record to show that at any point of time the disputed Math was recorded as a public religious institution and the authorities under the Act exercised any power or administrative control over the disputed Math. 9. In the present case, the fixed deposits were made in the name of Sri Rama Chandra Das, admittedly the head of the Torani Math. It has also been submitted that the said deposits actually belong to the disputed Math and not the Torani Math. Torani Math is admittedly a public religious institution. The Commissioner has right to refer the matter to the Asst. It has also been submitted that the said deposits actually belong to the disputed Math and not the Torani Math. Torani Math is admittedly a public religious institution. The Commissioner has right to refer the matter to the Asst. Commissioner u/s 41 (1)(d) of the Act for adjudication. If it is found after proper adjudication that the fixed deposits actually belong to Torani Math, a public religious institution, it is then immaterial whether the disputed Math is a public religious institution or not. 10. However, to resolve the dispute finally, we think that the dispute should be adjudicated u/s 41(1)(a) and (d) of the Act. At this stage, we do not want to interfere with the interim prohibition imposed by the Commissioner for Endowments, till the dispute is finally adjudicated u/s 41 of the Act. We, thus, dispose of the writ petition with the direction that the Commissioner will immediately refer the dispute to the Asst. Commissioner to adjudicate u/s 41(1)(a) and (d) of the Act whether the disputed Math is a public religious institution and whether the fixed deposits are the properties of Torani Math or the disputed Math. The writ petitioner will appear before the Assistant Commissioner on June 4, 2002 and submit written statement on behalf of the Math regarding its nature and its right over the fixed deposits. The Assistant Commissioner will complete his adjudication within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. The Assistant Commissioner will also allow the concerned parties to lead evidence, oral and documentary, if they so like. C.R. Pal, J. 11. I agree.