Orders affecting the management of a religious institution, specifically the appointment of an Interim Trust Board and the direction to hand over charge, must adhere to the principles of natural justice by providing an opportunity of hearing to the person currently in management.

JUDGMENT

By the Bench

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Office Note indicates that A.D. returned from Opposite Party Nos.6 to 9, 12, 15 and 16 after valid service.

2.1 Mr. Rath, learned counsel submits that he has already entered appearance on behalf of the Opposite Party Nos.6 to 10 and 12. Ms. Mahapatra, learned counsel appears on behalf of Opposite Party Nos.11, 13 and 14. Opposite Party Nos. 1, 4 and 5 are being represented by Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel and Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 are represented by Ms. Naidu, learned counsel for the Commissioner of Endowments.

3. This writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 08.09.2025 and 13.09.2025 (Annexure-1 and 2) respectively passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Bhubaneswar.

4. Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel submits that the Petitioner is the President of Brahmin Mahajan Kotha of the religious institution, namely, Shree Grameswar Dev Bije Amuri under Puri Sadar Police Station in the district of Puri.

5. A proceeding under Section 41 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowment Act, 1951 (for brevity “the Act”) has been filed by the religious institution Shree Grameswar Dev and others to declare the temple as a public religious institution without any hereditary trustee. During pendency of the said proceeding, an application under Section 8(2) of the Act was filed on 25.06.2025. The said petition was taken up on 31.07.2025 and was posted to 12.09.2025 for filing objection by the Opposite Party No.3 (Hindu Public) therein (Opposite Party No. 15 in the writ petition).

5.1 But, on the strength of an advance petition, the petition under Section 8(2) of the Act was taken up on 08.09.2025, on which date, it was directed to place the matter on the date fixed, i.e., on 12.09.2025. But, subsequently, on the very same day, learned Assistant Commissioner of Endowments took up the petition under Section 8(2) of the Act and appointed an Interim Trust Board, which is enclosed to the writ petition as Annexure-1.

5.2 It is submitted by Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel that the Petitioner is not a party to the said proceeding. But, pursuant to the order dated 08.09.2025 (Annexure-1) passed in the petition under Section 8(2) of the Act, he was directed to handover charge to the Interim Trust Board vide order dated 13.09.2025 (Annexure-2). Being aggrieved by both the orders, this writ petition has been filed.

6. Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the Petitioner, being in management of the religious institution, was not afforded with any opportunity of hearing either before constitution of the Interim Trust Board or when direction was issued to handover charge of the religious institution to the said Interim Trust Board. Hence, both the impugned orders under Annexures-1 and 2 passed by the Assistant Commissioner Endowments, Bhubaneswar are illegal and are liable to be set aside.

7. Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the Opposite Party Nos.6 to 10 and 12 submits that one of the Members of Brahmin Mahajan Kotha of the religious institution has filed Revision under Section 9 of the Act in RC No.23 of 2025 against the order under Annexure-1, which is pending for adjudication before learned Commissioner of Endowments. If the Petitioner is aggrieved by the order under Annexure-1 and 2, he may pray before the Commissioner of Endowment to be impleaded as a Party to the said revision and contest the said case.

8. Ms. Mahapatra, learned counsel for the Opposite Party Nos.11, 13 and 14 reiterates the submission of Mr. Rath, learned and submits that the Petitioner being the President of the Brahmin Mahajan Kotha is setting up different persons to pursue different proceedings and drag on the litigation to be in management of the religious institution, which is prejudicial to the interest of the religious institution itself. The Petitioner has a remedy under Section 9 of the Act ag