JUDGMENT : K.R. Mohapatra, J. The petitioner, in this writ petition, assails initiation and maintainability of the proceeding under Section 28 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 (for short ‘the OHRE Act’) in O.A. No.1 of 2010 pending before the Commissioner of Endowments, Odisha, Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.1). 2. Opposite Party No.2-Jagannath Das file O.A. No.1 of 2010 praying, inter alia, for removal of the present petitioner from the office of Hereditary trustee of the religious institution, namely, Chhatiabatta @ Samadhi Gossain (for short ‘the case institution’) for his alleged misconduct as narrated in the said petition (Annexure-4). The allegation of opposite party No.2 under Annexure-4 in short was that this Court vide judgment dated 28.11.1979 passed in M.A. No.64 of 1977 has held the case institution as temple within the definition of OHRE Act with the predecessors of the present petitioner and opposite party No.2 as hereditary trustee thereto. The matter was carried to the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1990/1980, which was disposed of on 30.11.1988 confirming the judgment passed in M.A. No. 64 of 1977. In the interregnum, the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Odisha, Bhubaneswar appointed the present petitioner as person-in-management of the case institution to manage its affairs until clear proof of succession. Thus, a proceeding under Section 30(1) of the OHRE Act in O.A. No. 74 of 2004 was initiated by the petitioner before the Commissioner of Endowments, Odisha, Bhubaneswar. The petitioner while in management of the case institution allegedly misconducted himself and acted to the detriment to the interest of the case institution which necessitated opposite party No.2 to initiate a proceeding under Section 28 of the OHRE Act. 3. The Commissioner of Endowments (opposite party No.1) by order dated 6.7.2010 admitted the matter and issued notice to the present petitioner. On receipt of notice the petitioner (who is opposite party in O.A. No. 1/10) neither took step nor filed Vakalatnama of his counsel till 2.5.2011. Hence, he was set ex parte. On 16.5.2011 Mr. K. Kar filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the petitioner along with a petition for setting aside the ex parte order dated 2.5.2011. On hearing, learned Commissioner by his order dated 11.2.2011, while setting aside said order dated 2.5.2011 on payment of cost of Rs.100/-, framed charges against the petitioner. Hence, he was set ex parte. On 16.5.2011 Mr. K. Kar filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the petitioner along with a petition for setting aside the ex parte order dated 2.5.2011. On hearing, learned Commissioner by his order dated 11.2.2011, while setting aside said order dated 2.5.2011 on payment of cost of Rs.100/-, framed charges against the petitioner. At this stage, the petitioner filed this writ petition assailing initiation and maintainability of the proceeding in O.A. No. 1 of 2010. 4. It is the submission of Mr. R. K. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner that initiation of a proceeding under Section 28 of OHRE Act was without jurisdiction, as the petitioner was not declared as hereditary trustee of the case institution and the proceeding under Section 30 (1) of OHRE Act in O.A. No. 74 of 2004 was pending for that purpose before the opposite party No. 1. Further, before removal of defect in the proceeding in O.A. No. 1 of 2010, the matter was admitted and charges were framed against the petitioner. Even otherwise, since the institution in question was not a party to the proceeding under Section 28 of OHRE Act, the said proceeding is not maintainable. 5. Mr. Nath, learned counsel for the opposite party No.1, supporting the action of the Commissioner Endowments, submitted that the case institution has already been declared as a temple within the definition of the OHRE Act with the predecessors of the petitioner as well as opposite party No.2 as hereditary trustees. Since, there was permanent vacancy in the office of hereditary trustees, after the death of the predecessors of the petitioner and opposite party No.2, as declared by this Court in M.A. No. 64 of 1977, the petitioner was appointed as a person-in-management (fit person) of the case institution by the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Odisha, Bhubaneswar till a clear proof of succession is made. He further, in his Memo No. 13951/249-C(M) dated 20.10.2001 directed the petitioner to produce the order of substitution of the legal heirs of hereditary trustees and in absence of such to get a declaration as required under Section 30 of the OHRE Act at an early date. He further, in his Memo No. 13951/249-C(M) dated 20.10.2001 directed the petitioner to produce the order of substitution of the legal heirs of hereditary trustees and in absence of such to get a declaration as required under Section 30 of the OHRE Act at an early date. Thus, the petitioner being in management of the case institution and a successor of the hereditary trustees, is liable for misconduct, if any, in management of the case institution and initiation of the proceeding under Section 28 of the OHRE Act is justified and proper. Further, the petitioner without participating in the proceeding under Section 28 of the OHRE Act to prove his innocence, filed the writ petition only to delay the matter and cause harassment to other hereditary trustees, which has created further complicacy and mismanagement of the case institution. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Mr. S.S. Rao, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2, supporting the contention of Mr. Nath, learned counsel submitted that the opposite party No.2 has, in detail, described the misconduct of the petitioner in managing the affairs of the case institution. Further, in view of the judgment passed in M.A. No. 64 of 1977, by this Court, which was subsequently confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1990/1980, the petitioner cannot raise any question with regard to pendency of the proceeding in the matter of succession to the office of hereditary trustees. Thus, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. In the meantime, in O.A. No. 74 of 2004 filed under Section 30 (1) of the OHRE Act has been disposed of vide order dated 30.9.2010 of the learned Commissioner of Endowments, Odisha, Bhubaneswar. Two sets of writ petitions, i.e., W.P. (C) Nos. 18299 of 2010 and 1644 of 2011 were filed challenging correctness of the said order. Having heard learned counsel for the parties in detail, this Court dismissed both the aforesaid writ petitions and confirmed the order of the Commissioner of Endowments, Odisha, Bhubaneswar vide judgment in separate sheet. Earlier this Court in M.A. No. 64 of 1977 has already declared the predecessors of the present petitioner as hereditary trustee of the case institution and the said order of this Court has already been confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1990 of 1980. Earlier this Court in M.A. No. 64 of 1977 has already declared the predecessors of the present petitioner as hereditary trustee of the case institution and the said order of this Court has already been confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1990 of 1980. There is no quarrel over the fact that the petitioner is a successor of the persons who were last declared as hereditary trustee of the case institution by this Court. The petitioner also does not dispute the fact that, he was the person-in-management of the case institution in pursuance of the direction of the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments, Odisha, Bhubaneswar. Hence, the first contention of Mr. R.K. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner that he was not declared as hereditary trustee of the case institution on the date of filing of the petition under Section 28 of the OHRE Act, prima facie does not appear to be correct. Mr. Mohanty, further contended that before the removal of the defect O.A. No. 1 of 2010 was admitted and notice was issued as well as charges were framed against the petitioner. On perusal of entire order sheet, filed in this writ petition as Anneuxre-8, it does not reveal that the petitioner has raised any such objection before the Commissioner of Endowments, Odisha, Bhubaneswar-opposite party No.1, who would have been the best person to deal with the matter. 7. In that view of the matter, without going into merits of the contentions raised by the counsel for the parties, this Court disposes of the writ petition directing the parties to raise their respective grievances before the Commissioner of Endowments, Odisha, Bhubaneswar in O.A. No.1 of 2010 pending before him and in that event, the Commissioner of Endowments, Odisha, Bhubaneswar shall do well to deal with all questions regarding initiation, maintainability as well as merit of the case after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. S. Panda, J. I agree.