JUDGMENT : S. Panda, J. - The petitioner in this writ application assails the order dated 11.6.1999 (Annexure-6) passed by learned Commissioner of Endowments, Odisha, Bhubaneswar directing the petitioner math to pay the arrear of contribution amounting to Rs.51,225/- in exercise power under Section 65(2) of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 (for short 'the Act'). 2. Petitioner's case in brief is that by order dated 15.07.57 (Annexure-1) passed in O.A. No.24 of 1947-1948, the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Orissa, Cuttack declared that the petitioner-institution is a 'Math' within the meaning of Section 3(vii) of the Act belonging to Ramanuja Sampradaya and the landed properties measuring Ac.490 (covered under Exts. 1 to 7 and 9 series, therein) were declared as the personal properties of Mohanta. But, the usufructs thereof were meant for the secular and religious purposes of the 'Math'. In spite of the some, a demand notice No.1796 dated 24.12.1996 (Annexure-4) was issued against the petitioner levying an amount of Rs.51,225/- towards contribution under Section 63(4) of the Act. The petitioner filed its objection (Annexure-5) stating the aforesaid facts seeking exemption to pay the amount. It was also contended inter alia that similar notice was also issued against the petitioner-Math in the year 1969 against which the petitioner had filed objection under Section 65(2) of the Act (A.A. No. 99 of 1968-1969). Learned Commissioner considering the objection, exempted the institution from payment of contribution on the properties vide order 18.07.1969 (Annexure-2). Further, demand notice for payment of contribution for the year 1977 (vide notice No.1347/89 dated 05.11.1977) was also struck down by learned Commissioner vide order dated 2.5.1978 passed in Misc. Case No. 8 of 1977 under Annexure-3 earlier. Thus, the petitioner claimed that he was not liable to pay any contribution as per assessment made under Annexure-4. Learned Commissioner without proper appreciation of the material on record held the petitioner-Math liable for payment of contribution as assessed under Annexure-4. Accordingly, he rejected the objection raised by the petitioner and directed the Assessment Section to assess the contribution and take follow up action vide his order dated 11.06.1999 (Annexure-6). Hence, the writ application has been filed for aforesaid relief. 3. During pendency of the writ petition, the Odisha Hindu Religious Endowments (Amendment) Act, 2014 come into force in order to amend different provisions of the Act, 1951. Hence, the writ application has been filed for aforesaid relief. 3. During pendency of the writ petition, the Odisha Hindu Religious Endowments (Amendment) Act, 2014 come into force in order to amend different provisions of the Act, 1951. Accordingly, Section 28, 35, 58, 63, 65, 66 and 76 of the Act, 1951 were amended. By virtue of operation of Sections 2 an d 3 of the Amendment Act, 2014, the words 'Contribution or other' appearing in Sections 28(1)(a) and 35 (1)(f) of Act, 1951 were omitted. As a consequence, sub-Section (2) of Section 58 of the Act, 1951 was also substituted by operation of Section 4 of the Amendment Act, 2014. Likewise, sub-Section 2(b) as well as sub-Sections (4) and (5) of Section 63 were omitted by operation of Section 5 of the Amendment Act, 2014. Section 66 was completely omitted from the Principal Act (Act, 1951). 4. Mr. Manoj Mishra, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the amendment as stated above to the Act 1951, the petitioner-Math is not liable to pay contribution as directed under Annexure- 6. He further submits that the amendments (supra) are retrospective in view of legislative intention behind bringing in the amendments. The purposive construction of the amendment makes the same retrospective. In support of his submission, he relied upon decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Zile Singh v. State of Haryana and others, reported in (2004) 8 SCC 1 ; Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-I, New Delhi v. Vatika Township Private Limited, reported in (2015) 1 SCC 1 ; Vijay v. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in (2006) 6 SCC 289 and State of Madhya Pradesh and others v. Rameshwar Rathod, reported in AIR 1990 SC 1849 . 5. Mr.S.P. Das, learned counsel for the opposite party-Commissioner of Endowments has no serious dispute to the facts of the case. However, he vehemently submits that an amendment to the provision of an 'Act' is always prospective, unless the same is made retrospective by enactment or by necessary implication. The amendments brought to the Principal Act (the Act, 1951) by virtue of Amendment Act, 2014 are not retrospective in nature, as no such provisions has been made in the Amended Act itself in that regard. Further, no legislative intention is made out from a plain reading of the Amendment Act, 2014, to make it retrospective. The amendments brought to the Principal Act (the Act, 1951) by virtue of Amendment Act, 2014 are not retrospective in nature, as no such provisions has been made in the Amended Act itself in that regard. Further, no legislative intention is made out from a plain reading of the Amendment Act, 2014, to make it retrospective. In support his submission, he relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Garikapatti Veeraya v. N.Subbiah Choudhury, reported in AIR 1957 SC 540 and the case of Rameshwar Rathod (supra). In the case of Government of India and others v. Indian Tobacco Association, reported in (2005) 7 SCC 396 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraphs 26, 27 and 28 held as under:- "26. We are not oblivious of the fact that in certain situations, the court having regard to the purport and object sought to be achieved by the legislature may construe the word "substitution" as an "amendment" having a prospective effect but such a question does not arise in the instant case. 27. There is another aspect of the matter which may not be lost sight of. Where a statute is passed for the purpose of supplying an obvious omission in a former statute, the subsequent statute relates back to the time when the prior Act was passed [See Attorney General v. Pougette (1816) 2 Price 381 : 146 ER 130] 28. The doctrine of fairness also is now considered to be a relevant factor for construing a statute. In a case of this nature where the effect of a beneficent statute was sought to be extended keeping in view the fact that the benefit was already availed of by the agriculturalists of tobacco in Guntur, it would be highly unfair if the benefit granted to them is taken away, although the same was meant to be extended to them also. For such purposes the statute need not be given retrospective effect by express words but the intent and object of the legislature in relation thereto can be culled out from the background facts." In the case of Zile Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held at paragraph-14 held as under:- "14. ....It is well settled that if a statute is curative or merely declaratory of the previous law retrospective operation is generally intended.... ....It is well settled that if a statute is curative or merely declaratory of the previous law retrospective operation is generally intended.... An amending Act may be purely declaratory to clear a meaning of a provision of the principal Act which was already implicit. A clarificatory amendment of this nature will have retrospective effect." In the case of Vatika Township Private Limited (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- "We would also like to point out, for the sake of completeness, that where a benefit is conferred by a legislation, the rule against a retrospective construction is different. If a legislation confers a benefit on some persons but without inflicting a corresponding detriment on some other person or on the public generally, and where to confer such benefit appears to have been the legislators object, then the presumption would be that such a legislation, giving it a purposive construction, would warrant it to be given a retrospective effect...." In the case of Vijay (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the statute enacted for the benefit of the community as a whole may be construed to have retrospective operation. 6. Taking into consideration the amendments brought in to the provisions of the Odisha Hindu Religious Endowments (Amendment) Act, 2014, wherein the words "Contribution or other" appears in Sections 28, 35, 58, 63, 65 and 66 were omitted, it can safely be concluded that intention of the Legislature not to further receive contribution from the religious institutions under the Act, 1951 considering the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court supra relied upon herein above and purposive construction of the Amended Act, 2014 appears that the Legislature intentionally omitted the words "Contribution or other" in the Amended Act, which is retrospective in nature. 7. In view of the amendment to Act, 1951 by virtue of different provisions of Amendment Act, 2014, as stated above, the Hindu religious institutions of the State of Odisha were exempted from payment of contribution to the Government. 8. Therefore, the Writ petition is allowed and the petitioner is exempted from contributing to the Government. Final Result : Allowed