IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.18414 OF 2014 ….

Bipreswar Mahadev Bije Nijagaon, Petitioners Marfat Madan Mohan Panda (dead)

At-Singhamapur, PO-Bahugram, P.S.-Jagatput, Dist-Cuttack and Another Ms. Debadeepta Sahoo, Advocate -versus-

State of Odisha and others …. Opp. Parties Mr. Manmaya Kumar Dash, Additional Standing Counsel Mr. Suresh Kumar Choudhury, Advocate (for O.P. Nos.5 to 15)

CORAM:

JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA

ORDER

Order No. 19.01.2026 I.A. No.1322 of 2026

08. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. This I.A. has been received from the Registry and is taken on record.

3. This I.A. has been filed by the Petitioners to delete the name of Opposite Party Nos.5 and 6 from the cause title.

4. Ms. Sahoo, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that Opposite Party Nos.5 was the Managing Trustee of the Non-

Hereditary Trust Board (NHT) and Opposite Party No.6 was a member of such Trust Board in respect of Deity Sri Sri Bipreswar Mahadev Bije-Singhamapur under Jagatpur Police Station in the district of Cuttack.

4.1. It is submitted that the Non-Hereditary Trust Board was constituted on 11^th July, 2014 by order of the Additional Assistant Commissioner of Endowment, Cuttack. The term of the NHT Board having expired in the meantime, the Opposite Party Nos.5 and 6 are not required to be substituted. Hence, she prays for deletion of their names.

5. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the Opposite Party Nos.5 to 15 submits that the writ petition has become infructuous as in the meantime an application under Section 41 of the Odisha Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) filed by the Petitioner to declare him as the Hereditary Trustee has already been dismissed for non-prosecution and petition filed for restoration of such application has also been dismissed. He further submits that the NHT Board of the Deity, in question, has already spent its life and thus the writ petition has become infructuous. He, therefore, submits that no further order is required to be passed in the I.A.

6. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that since the Petitioners wants to delete the name of Opposite Party Nos.5 and 6, the prayer should be allowed at his risk.

7. Accordingly, the prayer is allowed. Name of Opposite Party Nos.5 and 6 is deleted from the cause title of the writ petition.

8. The I.A. is accordingly disposed of.

(K.R. Mohapatra)

Judge (S.K. Mishra)

Judge W.P.(C) No.18414 of 2014

09. 1. This writ application has been filed with the following prayer:-

“In the circumstances stated above it is prayed that, the writ petition may be admitted, Opposite Parties may be noticed and hearing both the sides the writ petition may be allowed and the appointment of the Non Hereditary Trust Board vide Annexure-1 Series may be stayed and the Opposite Parties may be restrained to interfere in the peaceful possession of the Petitioner and the Petitioner may be allowed to continue his seva puja and other affairs of the deity unless and until the order is passed u/s 41 of the OHRE Act, 1951.

And for the said act of kindness the Petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.”

2. Ms. Sahoo, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners is the Hereditary Trustee and is performing the seva puja of the Deity. Due to appointment of NHT Board without considering the fact that there is a Hereditary Trustee in management of the Deity, this writ application has been filed with the aforesaid prayer.

3. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the Opposite Party Nos. 5 to 15 submits that the issue as to whether the Petitioner is the Hereditary Trustee or not was before the Additional Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Cuttack in O.A. No.34 of 2012. The same was dismissed for non-prosecution. Thereafter Misc. Case No.1 of 2024 was filed for restoration of the OA, which was also dismissed vide order dated 11^th November, 2025.

4. Ms. S