Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 464 (ORI)

ARJUN CHARAN ROUT v. STATE OF ORISSA

2010-07-08

R.N.BISWAL

body2010
JUDGMENT : R.N. Biswal, J. - The petitioners have challenged the appointment of opp. party Nos. 5 to 9 as Members of the Trust Board of Sri Laxmi Nrusingha Mahaprabhu, Bije at Purba Kachha in Cuttack district under Annexure-6, so also the order of approval of Opp, party No. 5 as President of said Trust Board under Annexure-8. 2. As per the writ petition Sri Laxmi Nrusingha Mahaprabhu is a public deity. In LA. No. 3/72, a scheme was framed (Annexure-1) u/s 42 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred as 'OHRE Act') for smooth management of its affairs and properties attached to it. In Clause (3) of Annexure-1, it has been specifically stipulated that the Institution with its endowments shall be administered by a Board of Trustees, numbering five to be appointed by the Addl. Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Cuttack, which shall hold office for such period, as may be fixed by him not exceeding five years. It has also been specified in clause (9) of the said Scheme that the Executive Officer shall be the ex-officio Secretary of the Trust Board. Trustees are being appointed on the basis of the Scheme under Annexure-1 since 19.72. On 30.11.2006, five persons namely, Dhruba Charan Das, Surath Ch. Dikshit, Dhruba Ch. Behera, (opp. party No. 9), Gagan Mohanty and Prasant Mohanty were appointed as Trustees for two years. As the term of said Trust Board was going to be expired on 29.11.2008, the petitioner No. 1, in consultation with the Inspector of Endowments, Cuttack, Circle No. II, made an appeal to the General Public for holding a meeting on 17.10.2008 for reconstitution of the new Trust Board. The meeting was held on that date and Arjuna Charan Rout, Aswin Kumar, Chakradhar Panda, Manas Ch. Dikshit and Satya Narayan Diksit were selected for appointment as members of the new Trust Board in presence of the Executive Officer, out of whom, the last two members were sevaks of the aforesaid deity. Accordingly, a resolution was passed under Annexure-2, and was handed over to the Executive Officer for taking appropriate action. Pursuant to Annexure-2, the Executive Officer prepared a Memorandum under Annexure-3. In spite of that Opp. Accordingly, a resolution was passed under Annexure-2, and was handed over to the Executive Officer for taking appropriate action. Pursuant to Annexure-2, the Executive Officer prepared a Memorandum under Annexure-3. In spite of that Opp. Party No. 3 directed the Inspector of Endowments to submit names of five persons for constituting the new Trust Board and accordingly on 5.11.2008 he (the Inspector of Endowments) published a general notice for recommendation of names office persons by 29.11.2008, under Annexure-4. In fact, no meeting of the General Public was held, but, at the instance of Opp, party Nos. 5 to 9 the Inspector of Endowments submitted a false report to Opp, party No. 3, stating therein that Opp, party No. 5 to 9 had been suggested by the General public to be appointed as members of the new Trust Board, under Annexure-5. Without taking Annexures-2 and 3 into consideration, opp. party No. 3, arbitrarily appointed Opp, parties 5 to 9 as members of the Trust Board under Annexure-6, which was approved by Opp, parties 1 and 2 mechanically. 3. It is the further case of the petitioners that while disposing of F.A. No. 12/1952 this Court observed that in view of the undertaking given by the Commissioner of Endowments, at least two persons would be selected to the Trust Board from the entire body of Sevaks of the deity and thereby their interest would be protected. On the basis of said judgment, two of the Sevaks had been appointed as trustees, in the Trust Board previous to the disputed Trust Board. There is no representation of the Sevaks in the disputed Trust Board. Hence, this writ petition. In their Counter Opp, parties 5, 6, 7 and 9 contended that they had been rightly appointed as members of the Trust Board in accordance with the Scheme prepared under Annexure-1. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there was no Public notice inviting suggestions Of names of persons to be appointed as members of the Trust Board. Without application of mind, Opp, party No. 3, mechanically appointed Opp, parties 5 to 9 as members of the Trust Board which is illegal. In support of his submission he relied on the decision Pramod Behera and others v. Commissioner of Endowments and others, 2009 (Supp.-II) OLR 113 : 2009 (II) OLR 181 and Ch. Krishna Murty and Others Vs. State of Orissa and Others. In support of his submission he relied on the decision Pramod Behera and others v. Commissioner of Endowments and others, 2009 (Supp.-II) OLR 113 : 2009 (II) OLR 181 and Ch. Krishna Murty and Others Vs. State of Orissa and Others. Again he submitted that as per the judgment in F.A. No. 12 of 1952 of this Court, two of the sevaks should have been appointed as members of the Trust Board, but, no such sevaks have been appointed under Annexure-6. On the other hand, Annexure-2 was passed in conformity with the said judgment. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that since the constitution of the Trust Board under Annexure-6 was illegal, selection of Opp, parties 5 as President of the Trust Board as well as his approval as such under Annexure-8 was also illegal. 5. On the contrary, learned counsel for the Opp, parties contended that due notice was published as required u/s 27 of the O.H.R.E. Act, inviting suggestions of names of persons to be appointed as members of the Trust Board and as per the suggestions of the General Public, the Trust Board was constituted under Annexure-6. As there is no provision in the scheme under Annexure-1 for reservation of membership for any Sevak, no sevak was appointed as member of the said Trust Board. He further submitted that this Court in F.A. No. 12 of 1952 did not specifically direct that out of 5 members of the Trust Board, two members must be selected from amongst the sevaks. Furthermore, he contended that Annexure-2 was not passed pursuant to any notification as required u/s 27 of the O.H.R.E. Act. So, he prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 6. In para 8 of the writ petition the petitioners have admitted that the Inspector of Endowments published a general notice inviting recommendation of names of five persons by 20.10.2008 for constitution of the Trust Board. They filed the Xerox copy of the said notice under Annexure-4. On perusal of Annexure-4, it is found that public notice, as required u/s 27 of the O.H.R.E. Act was duly published. Names of Opp, parties 5 to 9 having been suggested by the General Public, they were appointed as members of the Trust Board. So, the decisions cited above are not applicable to the present case. On perusal of Annexure-4, it is found that public notice, as required u/s 27 of the O.H.R.E. Act was duly published. Names of Opp, parties 5 to 9 having been suggested by the General Public, they were appointed as members of the Trust Board. So, the decisions cited above are not applicable to the present case. In the judgment passed in F.A. No. 12 of 1952 it was ordered as follows : Under these circumstances, I can not hold that the suit endowment is an excepted temple. But, the learned counsel Mr. S. Mohanty appearing for the Commissioner undertakes that in the appointment of Board of Trustees, at least two persons would be selected from the entire body of Sebaks of the deity. The Sevaks' interest in the management of the endowments will be protected by this undertaking as two of them will always be in the Board of Trustees. The judgment was passed way back on 7.1.1958. The Scheme under Annexure-1 was framed in the year 1972. In the said Scheme, there is no provision for representation of two sevaks in the Trust Board. As it appears, it has not been challenged before any forum. The Scheme is in vogue since last 38 years. The order in F.A. No. 12 of 1952 with regard to appointment of two sevaks, as members of the Trust Board, was passed on the basis of the undertaking of learned counsel appearing for Commissioner of Endowments. Admittedly, there was no notification u/s 27 of the O.H.R.E. Act before the resolution was passed under Annexure-2. In absence of such notice Annexure-2 and 3 have rightly not been taken into consideration. The Trust Board was constituted on 1.12.2008 under Annexure-6. Its term would expire on 30.11.2010. It would hardly continue for five months more. So, I am not inclined to quash Annexure-6. On the basis of Annexure-6, Opp, party No. 5 was elected as President of the Trust Board, which was duly approved under Annexure-8. As such Annexure-8 also cannot be quashed. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No cost. Final Result : Dismissed