JUDGMENT

A. S. NAIDU, J. — The dispute in the present Writ Petition relates to management of Hara Parbati Thakurani situated at Nimchouri, Chandinichowk of Cuttack Town.

2. The Commissioner of Endowments, Orissa, opposite party No. 1, by his order dated 24th June, 2006 - Annexure-1, in exercise of powers conferred upon him under Section 7 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) appointed eleven persons as interim trustees for a period of two years or till formation of a regular non-hereditary trust board under Section 27 of the Act whichever would be earlier. The said order Annexure-1 was passed, as the order itself reflects, in the interest of the Institution. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioners have approached this Court.

3. The grievance of the petitioners is mainly that the order Annexure-1 has been passed without issuing notice or affording an opportunity of hearing to them who are admittedly in the management of the affairs of the Deity. It is averred by them that the Deity is not a temple within the meaning of the Act, more so because it has no other property except the house in which annual earthen image of the Deity is prepared, worshipped during Dasahara festival and thereafter emerged. Similarly, images of Deity Kartikeswar and Deity Ganesh are prepared, worshipped and emerged in the aforesaid sequence. The petitioners have also challenged the appointment of opposite party No. 3 as an interim trustee of the Deity on some allegations.

4. Mr. S. P. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioners, in course of hearing laid emphasis as to the nature of the Institution and submitted that the same is a registered society and thus is outside the purview of the Act. He also raised sever¬al allegations against opposite party No. 3 inter alia he being a person interested, having misappropriated the funds of the Deity, having purchased lands of the Deity and so on and so forth, and thus being disqualified to be an interim trustee.

5. After receiving Rule, opposite parties 3 to 8 and 10 to 12 have appeared and filed a joint counter-affidavit. According to the said opposite parties the Institution and its properties are grossly mismanaged by person in charge who claims himself to be the General Secretary of the Society. It is alleged that with the sole aim to gain profit to himself out of the Institution and to grab the Institution the said persons is acting as so-called General Secretary. Several allegations of malfeasance and misfea¬sance have also been made.

A rejoinder affidavit has of course been filed by the petitioners denying some of the allegations made in the counter-affidavit.

6. Dr. A. K. Rath, learned counsel appearing for the Endowment Department, produced the entire file relating to the Institution in question and submitted that after due enquiry and on the basis of a report submitted by the Endowment Inspector and other officials, the Commissioner of Endowments being satisfied that there was gross mismanagement of the Institution, for its better management, by exercising his general power of superin¬tendence has passed the order Annexure-1 constituting an interim trust board. The said order Annexure-1, according to Dr. Rath, is just, proper and in consonance with the provisions of the Act. Dr. Rath strongly repudiated the submission of Mr. S. P. Misra that the Institution being a society does not come within the purview of the Act.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the pleadings as also the file produced by Dr. Rath.

8. Section 3 (xv) of the Act defines ‘Temple’ as follows :

“....... a place by whatever designation known, used as a place of public religious worship and dedicated to or for the benefit of, or used as of right by, a Hindu community, or any class or section thereof, as a place of public religious worship and also includes any cultural institution or Mandap or library connected with such a place of public