This judgment establishes that administrative powers must adhere to principles of natural justice and procedural fairness, especially in judicial matters that affect individuals' rights.

JUDGMENT :

Chittaranjan Dash, J.:

1. This Writ Petition is a connected matter to W.P.(C) No. 3694 of 2025, involving the same parties and religious institutions, and arises from a subsequent order passed during the pendency of proceedings under the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act , 1951. Here, the Petitioner has challenged the order dated 20.03.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Endowments, Odisha (O.P. No.1), appointing the Tahasildar, Seragada as “fit person” under Section 7 of the OHRE Act, contending that the said order was passed without providing him the opportunity of being heard, during the pendency of proceedings in which his recognition as hereditary trustee is under adjudication.

2. The factual matrix of the case is that the Petitioner claims to be the Hereditary Trustee and Mahant, having succeeded his spiritual predecessor Mahant Gobardhan Das vide a Will dated 24.05.1990. Following Mahant Gobardhan Das’s death in June 1990, the Petitioner had applied under Section 30 of the OHRE Act in OA No. 30/2001 seeking recognition as Hereditary Trustee. That application was allowed ex parte on 09.10.2007. However, the said ex parte order was stayed in Misc. Case No. 23/2007, filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC by objectors including Nityananda Muni since dead and later pursued by others including some of the present opposite parties. This led to prolonged litigation involving multiple writ petitions and proceedings before the Commissioner and the High Court. During the pendency of those proceedings and while the petitioner continued to function as “person in management” as per the Commissioner's interim order dated 08.10.2020, a petition was filed by O.P. Nos. 3 to 11 before the Commissioner seeking the appointment of a fit person under Section 7 , alleging mismanagement. Without issuing notice to the Petitioner or affording any opportunity of hearing, the Commissioner passed the impugned order dated 20.03.2025, appointing the local Tahasildar as the fit person. The Petitioner now challenges that order as being without jurisdiction, passed in violation of natural justice, and during the pendency of both OA No. 30/2001 and W.P.(C) No. 3694 of 2025 concerning the same subject matter.

3. Mr. S. S. Rao, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Petitioner contended that the impugned order dated 20.03.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Endowments, Odisha, appointing the Tahasildar, Seragada as “fit person” under Section 7 of the OHRE Act, is wholly arbitrary, illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice. He contended that the Petitioner was already functioning as the “person in management” of the temple institutions pursuant to the Commissioner’s prior order dated 08.10.2020, which had not been set aside. His claim as Hereditary Trustee was also pending adjudication in OA No. 30 of 2001. Mr. Rao asserts that despite this, the Commissioner proceeded to appoint a fit person during the pendency of those proceedings, and without issuing any notice or granting the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, thereby rendering the action procedurally unfair. It was further argued that there existed no circumstance warranting the exercise of emergency administrative powers under Section 7 , particularly in the absence of any vacancy or proven mismanagement. Mr. Rao submitted that even where the Commissioner has statutory powers to pass interim orders, such discretion must be exercised with procedural safeguards and due application of mind, especially when affecting vested and pending claims. He emphasised that the impugned order was not based on any inquiry, nor was it supported by a reasoned finding, and therefore, it deserves to be quashed. Mr. Rao has also placed his reliance on the decision of this Court in the matter of Nagabhan Naik and Ors. Vs. Sadananda Das and Anr. reported in 1972 AIR (Orissa) 188

4. Ms. P. Naidu, learned counsel appearing for O.P. No.1, justifies the impugned order dated 20.03.2025 by submitting