Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 176 (ORI)

GOURMANI DEI v. SHREE JAGANNATH MAHAPRABHU

2016-03-02

D.P.CHOUDHURY, I.MAHANTY

body2016
JUDGMENT : Dr. Durga Prasanna Choudhury, J. - 1. This writ petition (W.P.(C) No. 1331 of 2015) came to be filed challenging the tender notice issued by the opp. Parties to auction the earthen Ghee lamps (Deepa) shops inside the premises of temple of Lord Sri Jagannath at Puri. W.A. No. 116 of 2015 has been filed by the appellants challenging the JUDGMENT dated 5.2.2015 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 11555 of 2015. The subject matter in both Writ Application and Writ Appeal being same, both are disposed of by this common order with consent of learned counsels for both parties. FACTS : 2. The factual matrix leading to the case of the petitioners is that the Royal family was the founder of Lord Sri Jagannath temple at Puri. The kings of Puri were in direct management and control of the temple, its properties endowments and affairs till they ruled as sovereign heads of ex-State Puri-Khurda. It is also stated that the temple of Puri was subject to attack by different invaders during Musilm reigns and British rule, but the temple remained being unaffected. The then king, for better administration and affair for the temple brought few families belonging to Oilman community known as "Teli" Caste to Puri for supply of Polanga oil for lighting the temple premises of deity and for selling of earthen ghee lamps with wicks inside the premises of the temple of the deity by the Hindu devotees and worshipers before the deity inside the temple. Such practice was in vogue since time immemorial and is in continuity with certainty having Shastriec reasonableness. From generation to generation the petitioners and their ancestors were/are earning their livelihood from out of their income generated from selling the ghee "Deeps" in the premises of Sri Mandir which was duly allotted by then sovereign head and thereafter by the temple administration. In the ancient days the aforesaid vendors of earthen ghee lamps with wicks in the temple of the deity used to pay few annas as rent or fees to the king who was in the administration or helm of affairs of the temple in question. After the preparation of record-of-right, rights of the shop owners were recognized with payment of Rs. 2/- to Rs. 5/- per month to the fund of the temple. After the preparation of record-of-right, rights of the shop owners were recognized with payment of Rs. 2/- to Rs. 5/- per month to the fund of the temple. In the record-of-right it has been clearly mentioned about the Deep Ghee Mahal and payment of Rs. 2/- to Rs. 5/- per month by the shop owners. The petitioners' family is one of such family. Copy of the record-of-right has been annexed vide Annexure-1. The petitioners' family used to sell the ghee lamps near the temple of Goddess Saraswati inside the inner compound wall of Lord Sri Jagannath temple, Puri. The shop number was 15, but later it was changed to Shop No. 26. The petitioners and their ancestors used to earn their livelihood by selling of "ghee lamps". 3. It is stated that on 17.10.2007 the temple administration issued a cancellation notice and directed the petitioners and other family members to refrain from operating the said shop. For that the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 3113 of 2015 and other family members filed Civil Suit No. 27 of 2008 in the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Puri against the opp. Parties to declare the rights of the petitioners and their family members to sell earthen Ghee lamps with wicks in the suit shop room as long as they continued to pay rent or fees to the present opp. Parties who are defendants in that suit, to declare the present opp. Parties who are defendants in the suit to have no right to cancel, suspend or interfere with the right to sale of earthen Ghee lamps with wicks by the plaintiffs in that suit and to declare the order of cancellation of license to sell earthen Ghee lamps in the suit shop rooms as illegal and void. 4. It is stated that the suit was decreed partly in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants and the opp. Party No. 2 was directed to extend all facilities for sale of such Ghee lamps subject to Regulations under Shree Jagannath Temple Act, 1955 (hereinafter called as "the Temple Act"). The present opp. 4. It is stated that the suit was decreed partly in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants and the opp. Party No. 2 was directed to extend all facilities for sale of such Ghee lamps subject to Regulations under Shree Jagannath Temple Act, 1955 (hereinafter called as "the Temple Act"). The present opp. Parties 1 and 2 being defendants in that suit, filed R.F.A. No. 24/78 of 2010-2009 before the court of learned District Judge, Puri against the impugned decree and the learned Additional District Judge, Puri in appeal confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Puri on 6.5.2010. Then the opp. Parties made an agreement with petitioner No. 1 (since dead after filing of the present writ application) for operating the shop on payment of license fee of Rs. 1,500/- per month for a period of three years with right of renewal at the instance of the petitioners. The opp. Parties continued to receive the monthly license fee from the petitioners till February, 2015. 5. While the matter stood thus, on 10.2.2015 the opp. Party No. 3 issued a tender call notice by inviting applications from the intending bidders for different Ghee lamp shops situated within the premises of Lord Shree Jagannath Temple, Puri. So, on 19.2.2015 the petitioners made representation to the opp. Parties not to put their shop room in auction because of the judgment and decree passed by the competent Civil Court and the petitioners may be allowed to continue with the shop room. It is further averred that as the right of the petitioners to continue with the shop room is the profit-a-pendra, such right cannot be taken away. 6. It is further stated by the petitioners that by virtue of the order passed in W.P.(C) No. 11555 of 2008, the auction notice vide Annexure-7 was issued, but the petitioners are not parties to that writ petition for which such auction notice is illegal, unConstitutional and is violative of natural justice. So, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for addressing their grievance. 7. One of the present petitioners namely Krushna Chandra Sahu along with 33 others had preferred Writ Appeal No. 116 of 2015 against the opp. Parties being aggrieved by orders dated 15.1.2015 and 5.2.2015 passed in W.P.(C) No. 11555 of 2008 by the learned Single Judge of this Court. 7. One of the present petitioners namely Krushna Chandra Sahu along with 33 others had preferred Writ Appeal No. 116 of 2015 against the opp. Parties being aggrieved by orders dated 15.1.2015 and 5.2.2015 passed in W.P.(C) No. 11555 of 2008 by the learned Single Judge of this Court. In that appeal the appellants challenged the enhancement of the license fee towards Ghee lamp shops allotted to the respective appellants inside the temple premises of Lord Shri Jagannath. The grounds taken in the appeal are similar to the grounds taken in W.P.(C) No. 3113 of 2015. It is only stated in the Writ Appeal that the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order without perusing the record-of-rights and other documents of the petitioners. It is further stated that the learned Single Judge without considering their right to get license on payment of nominal premium has directed to put all the Ghee lamp shops opened inside the temple into auction with enhanced license fee. So, it is prayed to allow the writ Appeal by setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 11555 of 2008. 8. The opp. Parties have not filed counter affidavit in W.P.(C) No. 3113 of 2015, but has filed counter affidavit in W.P.(C) No. 11555 of 2008. In that counter affidavit they denied about any grant of license to the petitioners in that writ petition including the present petitioners in this writ petition. It is alleged inter alia that on 12.10.2011 the Temple Managing Committee resolved to remove the Ghee lamp shops from 'Bhitar Bedha' to 'Bahar Bedha' to curb inconvenience to the devotees coming to the temple. It is also stated in the counter affidavit in W.P.(C) No. 11555 of 2008 that the petitioners in that writ petition were the licensees of different Ghee lamp shops and the license fees are being collected from them. Such license fee was one of the incomes of the temple. There is no record-of-rights granted to any shop keepers including the petitioners in both the writ petitions to sell Ghee lamps inside the temple premises. The opp. Parties deny about any permanent heritable rights of the appellants to sell the Ghee lamps inside the temple premises. Such license fee was one of the incomes of the temple. There is no record-of-rights granted to any shop keepers including the petitioners in both the writ petitions to sell Ghee lamps inside the temple premises. The opp. Parties deny about any permanent heritable rights of the appellants to sell the Ghee lamps inside the temple premises. On the other hand to enhance the income of the temple the Managing Committee of the temple enhanced the license fee by putting the Ghee lamp shops into auction. Challenging such decision of the temple Managing Committee writ petition was filed vide W.P.(C) No. 11555 of 2008, against which the present Writ Appeal is preferred because the learned Single Judge passed the interim order to put the Ghee lamp shops on auction as the offset price fixed at Rs. 50,000/- of the speculating bidding offer. It is stated by the respondents to affirm the order of learned Single Judge. SUBMISSIONS 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 3113 of 2015 and appellants in Writ Appeal No. 116 of 2015 submit that they have got record-of-rights since time immemorial to sell the Ghee lamps inside the temple premises. As such, they having been selling the same generation wise, acquire heritable right to occupy the Ghee lamp shop and sell Ghee lamps on payment of nominal fee to the Temple Administrator. It is further submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners and appellants that the opp. Parties-respondents have no right to put them on the footing of licensee and charge exorbitant license fee and also the opp. Parties have no right to evict them from the respective Ghee lamp license shops. It is further submitted that as per the decision of the competent Civil Court, the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 3113 of 2015 have got their right declared as permanent shop keepers of Shop No. 15 (now it is Shop No. 26) and the opp. Parties-respondents have no right to put the same into auction and collect enhanced license fee. It is also contended on behalf of the petitioners-appellants that as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court also the petitioners-appellant s have acquired right to sell the Ghee lamps inside the temple as per their rights recorded in the record-of-rights prepared in the year 1954. It is also contended on behalf of the petitioners-appellants that as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court also the petitioners-appellant s have acquired right to sell the Ghee lamps inside the temple as per their rights recorded in the record-of-rights prepared in the year 1954. So, the learned counsel for the petitioners-appellants submitted to allow the writ application and the writ appeal and restrain the opp. Parties-respondents from putting the shops into general auction and collect enhance license fee. 10. Learned counsel for the opp. Parties-respondents submitted that the Civil Court has not declared any permanent heritable right in favour of the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 3113 of 2015 or their ancestors to sell Ghee lamps in Shop No. 26, but on the other hand the opp. Parties were directed to allow the petitioners to sell Ghee lamps on payment of license fee, subject to provisions of the Sri Jagannath Temple Administration Act, 1954. It is also contended on behalf of the opp. Parties-respondents that after the enactment of Sri Jagannasth Temple Administration Act, 1954, the temple Managing Committee has got every right to take decision as to rituals of the deities and to take care of the property of the deities. It is also the duty of the Temple Managing Committee to enhance the income of Lord Sri Jagannath by enhancing the temple fund. It is also contended that the license fee collected from the auction of the Ghee lamp shops is one of the income of the deities under the Temple Act, 1954. He submitted that the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 11555 of 2015 has been pleased to pass order to put the Ghee lamp shops into auction as per the provisions of law and such order cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. He, therefore, submitted to confirm the said order of the learned Single Judge of this Court and to dismiss the writ petition as well as the writ appeal filed by the respective petitioners and the appellants respectively. 11. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION. "(i) Whether the petitioners in both the writ petitions have got any permanent heritable right to continue in the respective Ghee lamp shops including Shop No. 26 respectively on payment of necessary license fee? (ii) Whether the opp. 11. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION. "(i) Whether the petitioners in both the writ petitions have got any permanent heritable right to continue in the respective Ghee lamp shops including Shop No. 26 respectively on payment of necessary license fee? (ii) Whether the opp. Parties-respondents have got right to put the shops into general auction on the upset price fixed?" DISCUSSIONS 12. POINT NO.(I) It is admitted by both the parties that Ghee lamp shops have been opened inside the premises of Shri Jagannath Temple, Puri and they are situated at different places inside the temple premises. It is also not disputed that these shops are managed by the petitioners on payment of license fee and they were selling Ghee lamps to the devotees who are offering prayer in the temple. It is also the admitted fact that there is Temple Managing Committee looking after the affairs of Shree Jagannath temple under the Temple Act, 1954. It is not in dispute that both the parties in W.P.(C) No. 3113 of 2015 were parties to Civil Suit with regard to the Ghee lamp shop No. 15 (now it is Shop No. 26) and the same suit was partly decreed in favour of the petitioners and the judgment and decree were also confirmed in appeal by the court of learned Additional District Judge, Puri. 13. The petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 3113 of 2015 produced copy of the record-of-rights vide Annexure-1. On going through the same it appears that the Ghee lamp shops are being auctioned on the price fixed by the Temple Administration and each of the shop keepers after selling the Ghee lamps used to pay a premium of Rs. 2/- to Rs. 5/- to the temple. Thus, the record-of-right has not given any right to the petitioners except the fact that the Ghee shops were put into auction and then allotted the Ghee shop keepers for selling Ghee lamps and receiving premium from them. The petitioners rely upon the copy of the judgment passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Puri in Civil Suit No. 27 of 2008 on 30.7.2009. That suit was decreed in part in the following terms:-- "The suit be and the same is decreed partly, on contest against the defendants, without cost. The defendants are directed to allow any of the plaintiffs to resume sale of ghee deep in suit shop room No. 15. That suit was decreed in part in the following terms:-- "The suit be and the same is decreed partly, on contest against the defendants, without cost. The defendants are directed to allow any of the plaintiffs to resume sale of ghee deep in suit shop room No. 15. The defendant No. 2 is further directed to extend all the facilities for such sale including supply of electricity as per the terms and conditions subject to regulation by the authority (defendant) under the Jagannath Temple Act, 1954." Annexure-3 shows that the judgment and decree was challenged before the appellate forum and learned Additional District Judge, Puri passed the following order:-- "19. In the result, the appeal at the instance of appellants as against revocation of licence stands dismissed as against respondents on contest. Likewise the cross-appeal at the instance of respondents in regard to permanent heritable and irrevocable interest of licence coupled by grant stands dismissed as against appellants on contest. As a necessary corollary the impugned judgment and decree dated 31.7.2009 passed in C.S. No. 27 of 2008 by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Puri is hereby confirmed. Thus, the Court holds that the appellants have proceeded against the respondents and cancelled the licence without observing all sound judicial principles and thus, in violation of principle of adui alteram partem whereas the respondents have miserably failed to establish heritable interest in respect of licence coupled with grant lost in antiquity." 14. On going through both the documents it appears that both the Courts below have observed that the present petitioners have miserably failed to establish their heritable right in respect of licence coupled with grant lost in antiquity, but at the same time they observed that the present opp. Parties who are defendants should not have cancelled the license without observing sound judicial principle of natural justice. Be that as it may, the Civil Court has not recognized the heritable right or interest of the petitioners in selling the earthen Ghee lamps within the temple premises. It reveals from Annexure-4 that as per the decree the Temple Administration decided to enter into an agreement with petitioner No. 1, who is the mother of petitioner Nos. 1(a to f) and opp. Party Nos. 2 and 3 for selling of Ghee lamps at Shop No. 26 on payment of license fee. It reveals from Annexure-4 that as per the decree the Temple Administration decided to enter into an agreement with petitioner No. 1, who is the mother of petitioner Nos. 1(a to f) and opp. Party Nos. 2 and 3 for selling of Ghee lamps at Shop No. 26 on payment of license fee. Accordingly, an agreement was made vide Annexure-4 and it is very much clear that the license was granted on payment of Rs. 1,500/- per month on every 7th day of succeeding month by the petitioners to the opp. Parties and this license was granted for three years and after three years the opp. Parties would again put the Ghee lamp shops into auction where the petitioners may participate, but the decision will be taken by the opp. Parties. There are other conditions with regard to maintenance of Ghee lamp shops and selling Ghee lamps to the devotees. Thus, from Annexure-4 it is made clear that no heritable or permanent right was created over the Ghee lamp shops in question. In fact Annexure-6 shows that after expiry of the earlier agreement the deceased petitioner No. 1 applied to lease out the same again to the petitioners, but the opp. Parties issued notice to put the Ghee lamp shops including the present Shop No. 26 into auction. Also the deceased petitioner No. 1 has applied vide Annexure-8 to exempt Shop No. 26 from auction stating that they have approached this Court. From all the documents and pleadings, it is clear that in W.P.(C) No. 3113 of 2015 the petitioners have not been able to establish that they have acquired any permanent or heritable right or interest in Shop No. 26 to occupy same and sell Ghee lamps to devotees. 15. From all the documents and pleadings, it is clear that in W.P.(C) No. 3113 of 2015 the petitioners have not been able to establish that they have acquired any permanent or heritable right or interest in Shop No. 26 to occupy same and sell Ghee lamps to devotees. 15. The preamble of the Temple Act states as follows:-- "And whereas long period to and after the British conquest the superintendence, control and management of the affairs of the Temple have been the direct concern of successive Rulers, Governments and their officers and of the publisher exchequer; And whereas by Regulation IV of 1809 passed by the Governor-General in Council in 28th April, 1809 and thereafter by other laws and regulations and in pursuance of arrangement entered into with the Raja of Khurda, later designated the Raja of Puri, the said Raja came to be entrusted hereditary with the management of the affairs of the Temple and its properties as Superintendent subject to the control and supervision of the ruling power; And whereas in view of grave and serious irregularities thereafter Government had to intervene on various occasions in the past; And whereas the administration under the Superintendent has further deteriorated and a situation has arisen rendering it expedient to reorganize the scheme of management of the affairs of the Temple and its properties and provide better administration and governance therefore in supersession of all previous laws, regulations and arrangements, having regard to the ancient customers and usages and the unique and traditional nitis and rituals contained in the Record-of-Rights prepared under the Puri Shri Jagannath Temple (Administration) Act, 1952 (Orissa Act XIV of 1952) in the manner hereinafter appearing;" Section 5 of the Temple Act states as follows:-- "Notwithstanding anything in any other law for the time being force or custom, usage or contract, Sanad, deed or engagement, the administration and the governance of the Temple and its endowments shall vest in a Committee called the Shri Jagannath Temple Managing Committee constituted as such by the State Government, and it shall have the rights and privileges in respect thereof as provided in Section 33. It shall be a body corporate, having perpetual succession and a common seal, and may, be the said name sue and be sued." Section 30(1) of the Temple Act states as hereunder:-- "30(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act the general superintendence of the Temple and its endowments shall vest in the State Government which may pass any orders that may be deemed necessary for the proper maintenance or administration of the Temple or its endowments or in the interest of the general public worshipping in the Temple." Section 33(1) reads as follows:-- "33(1) The Committee shall be entitled to take and be in possession of all movable and immovable properties including the Ratna Bhandar and funds and Jewelleries, records, documents and other assets belonging to Temple." About importance of above provision as incorporated in the Temple Act the Hon'ble Apex Court have held in the decision in Sri Jagannath Temple Managing Committee v. Siddha Math & Others reported in, 2016 (I) OLR(SC) 209 where Their Lordship observed as under:-- " ....... As far as the Lord Jagannath Temple at Puri is concerned, the State Legislature had already enacted the Temple Act, 1955 and vested the land belonging to the Temple in the Temple Management Committee by virtue of Sections 5 and 30 of the Act of 1955. The object of the said Act was to provide for better administration and governance of the affairs of the Temple and its properties......" With due respect to the said decision, we are of the view that the Temple Act is meant for management and administration of the entire properties of Shri Jagannath Temple, Puri inasmuch as it is a special Act overriding all general laws, particularly as per Section 2 of the Temple Act the provisions of Orissa Hindu Religious Endowment Act, 1951 has ceased to apply to the Temple of Lord Jagannath, Puri from the date the Temple Act came into force. This view is re-enforced by the provisions of Section 5 of the Temple Act stating that it is a body corporate and has got perpetual succession. 16. In the case of U.P. State Electricity Board & Anr. V. Hari Shankar Jain & Ors., reported in, (1978) 4 SCC 16 , where their Lordships held as under:-- "8. The maxim "Generalia Specialibus non derogant" is quite well known. 16. In the case of U.P. State Electricity Board & Anr. V. Hari Shankar Jain & Ors., reported in, (1978) 4 SCC 16 , where their Lordships held as under:-- "8. The maxim "Generalia Specialibus non derogant" is quite well known. The rule flowing from the maxim has been explained in Mary Seward v. The owner of the "Vera Cruz" as follows: Now if anything be certain it is this that where there are general words in a later Act capable of reasonable and sensible application without extending them to subjects specially dealt with by earlier legislation, you are not to hold that earlier and special legislation indirectly repealed, altered, or derogated from merely by force of such general words, without any indication of a particular intention to do so. 9. The reason for the rule that a general provision should yield to a specific provision is this: In passing a Special Act, Parliament devotes its entire consideration to a particular subject. When a General Act is subsequently passed, it is logical to presume that parliament has not repealed or modified the former Special Act unless it appears that the Special Act again received consideration from Parliament....... " In Commercial Tax Officer, Rajasthan v. Binani Cements Ltd. & Anr., reported in, 2014 (8) SCC 319 it has been held: "46. In Gobind Sugar Mills Ltd. V. State of Bihar this Court has observed that while determining the question whether a statute is a general or a special one, focus must be on the principle subject-matter coupled with a particular perspective with reference to the intendment of the Act. With this basic principle in mind, the provisions must be examined to find out whether it is possible to construe harmoniously the two provisions. If it is not possible then an effort will have to be made to ascertain whether the legislature had intended to accord a special treatment vis-?-vis the general entries and a further endeavour will have to be made to find out whether the specific provision excludes the applicability of the general ones. Once we come to the conclusion that intention of the legislation is to exclude the general provision then the rule "general provision should yield to special provision" is squarely attracted. 47. Once we come to the conclusion that intention of the legislation is to exclude the general provision then the rule "general provision should yield to special provision" is squarely attracted. 47. Having noticed the aforesaid, it could be concluded that the rule of statutory construction that the specific governs the general is not an absolute rule but is merely a strong indication of statutory meaning that can be overcome by textual indications that point in the other direction. This rule is particularly applicable where the legislature has enacted comprehensive scheme and has deliberately targeted specific problems with specific solutions. A subject specific provision relating to a specific, defined and descriptable subject is regarded as an exception to and would prevail over a general provision relating to a broad subject." 17. With due respect to the above decisions the maxim "generialia specialis-bus non derogant" is well known for the reason that where there is Special Act, it will override the general Act or the general provision should yield to special provision. Applying the said principle in the facts of the case, we are of the view that the Temple Act being a special statute by express provision excludes the application of the general law as available in Orissa Hindu Religious Endowment Act and all other law with regard to the management and administration of the Shri Jagannath Temple, Puri under the Temple Act and their moveable and immoveable properties. Not only this, but also section 4(d)of the Temple Act defines record-of-rights which means the record-of-rights prepared under the Puri Sri Jagannath Temple (Administration) Act (Act XIV of 1952). As available from the preamble of the Temple act, the record-of-rights should only record having regard to the ancient customs, usages of unique and traditional nities and rituals. Thus, the record-of-right as defined under the Temple Act read with the preamble do not enshrine that the record-of-rights should contain any other right of any person inside the premises of the temple to sell ghee lamps being licensee. On the other hand, as stated above when the entire properties, be moveable or immoveable vest with the Temple Administration and the Managing Committee is in possession of all properties by virtue of sections 5, 30 and 33 of the Temple Act, the question of record-of-rights in favour of the petitioners in both the writ petitions does not arise. On the other hand, as stated above when the entire properties, be moveable or immoveable vest with the Temple Administration and the Managing Committee is in possession of all properties by virtue of sections 5, 30 and 33 of the Temple Act, the question of record-of-rights in favour of the petitioners in both the writ petitions does not arise. Moreover, the learned counsel for the petitioners have not produced any evidence on record through which it could claim ownership over Shop No. 26 or any other ghee lamp shops duly granted by the opp. Parties. Be that as it may, the Temple act being an independent, unique statute and the record-of-rights having not described about any ghee lamp shops or licence created thereon in favour of the petitioners, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that they have got permanent hereditary right thereon is jettisoned. 18. From the aforesaid analysis, we are of the considered view that the petitioners in both the petitions have no right over any ghee lamp shops opened inside the premises of Sri Jagannath temple for selling the ghee lamps except through a valid licence granted by the temple to sell the ghee lamps, by following the procedure as per law. Point No. I is answered accordingly. POINT NO.II. 19. Section 4 (e) of the Temple act defines temple fund in the following manner:-- "(e) "Temple Fund" shall mean the Shri Jagannath Temple Fund constituted under Section 28." Section 28 (1) of the Temple Act states as follows:-- "28. Point No. I is answered accordingly. POINT NO.II. 19. Section 4 (e) of the Temple act defines temple fund in the following manner:-- "(e) "Temple Fund" shall mean the Shri Jagannath Temple Fund constituted under Section 28." Section 28 (1) of the Temple Act states as follows:-- "28. (1) There shall be constituted a Fund to be called 'Shri Jagannath Temple Fund' which shall be vested in and be administered by the Committee and save as otherwise provided in this Act, shall consist of (a) The income derived from the movable and immovable properties of the Temple; (b) Any contributions by the State Government either by way of grant or by way of loan; (c) All fines and penalties under this Act; (d) All recoveries under this Act; (e) Any other gifts or contributions made by the public, local authorities or institutions." From the aforesaid provision it is clear that the income derived from the moveable and immoveable properties to the Temple Fund and as per the other provisions of the Temple act it is discretion of the Temple Administration to raise income for the management, administration and the rituals of Lord Sri Jagannath. So, the license fees if realized from ghee lamp shop keepers allotted by the Temple administration is one of the income derived from immovable properties of the temple. 20. Learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 11555 of 2008 has passed the following orders:-- "Order No. 09 dated 11.01.2015. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties. It appears that the Temple Administration has taken a decision to put the Ghee-Deep stalls to auction and I do not see any infirmity in the said decision. However, it is open to the petitioners to participate in the auction to be held. The auction shall be held in the months of February, 2015, after giving due notice to the petitioners and the entire process shall be completed by the end of February, 2015. As a pre-condition, in the auction to be held, the participants shall not be a defaulters and affidavits to that effect shall be filed by them by 9th March, 2015. List this matter on 11th March, 2015." "Order No. 10 dated 05.02.2015 With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is taken up for final decision. Heard Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioners. List this matter on 11th March, 2015." "Order No. 10 dated 05.02.2015 With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is taken up for final decision. Heard Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioners. By interim order dated 15.01.2015, this Court permitted the Temple Administration to proceed with the auction-cum-tender. Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the petitioners are selling lamps in the Temple premises for several years, they should be permitted to match the highest bid in the event they fail to match the highest bid of other bidders. The participants of the auction should deposit the minimum up set price fixed by the Temple Administration and the Temple Administration is free to put any other condition as required under law. Further, the Temple Administration may provide an opportunity to the petitioners to match the offer of the highest bid subject to the condition that they shall offer minimum price of Rs. 50,000/- of the speculative bidding offer. This order has been passed keeping in view the curb of speculative biddings. The entire process shall be completed by 15th March, 2015. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy." 21. On perusal of the said orders, it appears that this Court has taken into consideration the responsibility of the Temple Administrator and passed order to put the "Depa Mahal" consisting of ghee lamp shops inside the temple by fixing the upset price, so that more income will be generated, which will be credited to the temple fund created under section 28 of the Temple Act. Since the Temple Administration is in management of the moveable and immoveable properties of the deity under section 5 read with section 30 of the Temple Act, it has got exclusive right to earn money from the moveable and immoveable properties of the deity so as to increase the fund which will be utilized for performing the various rituals of the deities including maintenance of the Temple. The procedure of auction is the best way of maintaining transparency without compromising with any individual's choice or supremacy or dominancy. So, by taking into consideration the general policy of auction and with the view to enhance the income of the temple fund the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned orders rightly. The procedure of auction is the best way of maintaining transparency without compromising with any individual's choice or supremacy or dominancy. So, by taking into consideration the general policy of auction and with the view to enhance the income of the temple fund the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned orders rightly. So, we are of the view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is correct, legal and proper and as such, the opp. Parties-respondents have got every right to put the shops into general auction on the upset price fixed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 11555 of 2008. Point No. II is answered accordingly. CONCLUSION: 22. It has already been held in the aforesaid paragraphs that the petitioners in both the writ petitions have no permanent or heritable right to continue in the respective ghee lamp shops including Shop No. 26 on payment of necessary fee. Moreover, it has been held that the opp. Parties-respondents have got right to put the ghee lamp shops into public auction. We have already observed in the aforesaid paragraphs that the order of the learned Single Judge is valid, legal and proper. At the same time while the opp. Parties are going to auction the ghee lamp shops inside the premises of the temple, it must observe all the principles of general auction. In our view there should be auction of the ghee lamp shops for a period of two years at a time, with a substantial amount of offset price to be fixed, so that it will generate income to enhance the temple fund for the maintenance and welfare of the temple. We are of the further considered view that the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 3113 of 2015 have no right over Ghee Lamp Shop No. 26 and the appellants in Writ Appeal also have no right over any ghee lamp shops, which are put to auction and the order of the learned Single Judge in this regard has to be upheld and confirmed. We, therefore, dismiss W.P. (C) No. 3113 of 2015 being devoid of merit. We also dismiss Writ Appeal No. 116 of 2015 by affirming the impugned orders passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 11555 of 2008. I. Mahanty, J. - I Agree.