Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
Arindam Sinha, S.K. Mishra, JJ.
Deba Prasad Nayak – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition (C) No. 35012 of 2021
Decided On : 20-12-2022
Notice - Appointment of Non-Hereditary Trust Board - The court held that the petitioner's name was suggested as a member of the Non-Hereditary Trust Board, and therefore, there was no circumstance of the petitioner not being on notice of the proceeding. The impugned order naming members of the Board was in pursuance of the direction imparted by the Government, and the petitioner's name did not figure in the impugned order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the order appointing members of the Non-Hereditary Trust Board in relation to Sri Sanischar Mahagraha Temple, citing that the notice initiating the procedure mandated under section 27 in Odisha Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 could not have been made during the lockdown period due to COVID-19.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's name was suggested as a member of the Non-Hereditary Trust Board and concluded that there was no circumstance of the petitioner not being on notice of the proceeding. The impugned order naming members of the Board was in pursuance of the direction imparted by the Government, and the petitioner's name did not figure in the impugned order. The court disposed of the writ petition, advising the petitioner to challenge the impugned order on grounds other than notice.
Issues: Challenge to the appointment of members of the Non-Hereditary Trust Board based on the timing of the notice during the COVID-19 lockdown period.
Ratio Decidendi: The petitioner's name being suggested as a member of the Non-Hereditary Trust Board indicated that the petitioner was on notice of the proceeding, and the impugned order was in pursuance of the Government's direction, not including the petitioner's name.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of, and the petitioner was advised to challenge the impugned order on grounds other than notice.
JUDGMENT
1. Mr. Pal, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, impugned is order dated 14th September, 2021 of Assistant Commissioner of Endowments appointing members of Non-Hereditary Trust Board in relation to Sri Sanischar Mahagraha Temple. He draws attention to notice signed on 15th May, 2021 initiating procedure mandated under section 27 in Odisha Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951. He submits further, the notice could not have been made as it was during period of lockdown occasioned by COVID-19. He refers to order dated 1st May, 2021 to demonstrate that there was complete lockdown in the State from 1st May, 2021 to 5:00 a.m. on 19th May, 2021. Hence, there was no notice.
2. Ms. Naidu, learned advocate appears on behalf of opposite party no.2 and draws attention to report dated 8th June, 2020 on subject of suggestion of members for Trust Board of the institution. In the report the list of persons suggested for appointment as Non-Hereditary Trustees, petitioner's name is at serial no.9.
3. Mr. Sharma, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of State.
4. We are not inclined to look further into challenge held out in the writ petition by petitioner. There is no doubt that petitioner's name was suggested as member of Non-Hereditary Trust Board. As such, there cannot be any circumstance of petitioner not being on notice of the proceeding. Impugned order naming members, those of the Non-Hereditary Trust Board by the Assistant Commissioner says it is in pursuance of the direction imparted by the Government on letter dated 6th September, 2021, approving those persons as members of the Board. Petitioner's name does not figure in impugned order.
5. Petitioner, if otherwise aggrieved by impugned order may challenge the same as advised but not on the ground of notice.
6. With above observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
The suggestion of the petitioner's name as a member of the Non-Hereditary Trust Board indicated that the petitioner was on notice of the proceeding, and the impugned order was in pursuance of the Gov....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appointment order must be based on a valid proposal approved by the Government, as provided for in the Odisha Hindu Religious Endowments A....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the appointment order for Non-hereditary Trustees under section 27 of the Odisha Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951, must be based on a p....
Court affirmed the continuing authority to appoint non-hereditary trustees while addressing pending hereditary claims without vacating procedures under the H.R. & C.E. Act.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
