The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Commissioner of Endowments cannot impose conditions while granting a 'No Objection' certificate as mandated by the Odisha Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951.

JUDGMENT

1. Mr. Choudhury, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioners and submits, on requirement by the registering authority, to produce 'No Objection' certificate, obtained from the Commissioner of Endowments, his clients applied for the same. By impugned judgment dated 18th May, 2019, the Commissioner of Endowments imposed condition of making fixed deposit to be pledged in favour of the Commissioner and restrictions on dealing with the accruals. He refers to sections 1 and 19-A in Odisha Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 to demonstrate that the Legislature mandated control thereby of public religious institutions. He submits, the Commissioner did so on finding his clients had private deity.

2. He relies on views taken by two divisions Benches of the Court. firstly, order dated 3rd March, 2020 in W.P.(C) no.29423 of 2019 (Sachimani Paikray and others vs. State of Odisha and another), from where a passage is extracted and reproduced below.

'The same also makes it clear that such 'No Objection Certificate' has to be granted in Form-AA and nowhere the learned Commissioner is empowered to put conditions while granting such certificate.'

Secondly, Gopal v. State, reported in 2021 (II) OLR 947. Paragraph 8 in the judgment is reproduced below.

'8. A harmonious reading of Section 19-A and Rule 4A makes it clear that Section 19A cannot be confined to the public religious institution only. Thus, any institution for which an order under Section 19-A is required, the learned Commissioner on an application can issue a NOC in the manner prescribed under Rule 4-A. in the instant case, the institution has been declared as a private religious institution by the learned Commissioner in an appeal (FA No.14 of 1975) under Section 44 of the Endowments Act. Thus, while issuing NOC, the learned Commissioner has to adhere to the procedure prescribed under Rule 4-A of the Endowment Rules. As held in Laxmi Narayan Thakur (supra) neither Rule 4-A nor Form AA empowers the learned Commissioner to put any condition while granting NOC.'

3. Ms. Naidu, learned advocate appears on behalf of Commissioner and points out from paragraph 2 in impugned judgment that there is record, petitioners having decided to sell away the case land would deposit the sale profits in any nationalized bank in the name of the deity on long term basis. Interest accrued therefrom will be utilized for daily seba pooja and niti kanti of the deity. On such position taken the Commissioner had directed as done by impugned judgment. Mr. Choudhury in reply submits, that was intention expressed. It could not be converted into conditions imposed.

4. We accept the view of aforesaid co-ordinate Benches. We respectfully agree that while issuing NOC, the Commissioner has to adhere the procedure prescribed under rule 4-A in Odisha Hindu Religious Endowments Rules, 1959. Neither rule 4-A made nor Form AA empowers the commissioner to put any condition while granting NOC.

5. Impugned judgment is set aside and quashed. The Commissioner is directed to forthwith issue 'No Objection' certificate in prescribed form.

6. The writ petition is disposed of.