Orissa High Court
Ashok Kumar Senapati vs Commissioner Of Endowments on 2 May, 2023
Author: Arindam Sinha
Bench: Arindam Sinha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.7817 of 2023
Ashok Kumar Senapati .... Petitioner
Mr. Manoj Mishra, Senior Advocate
-versus-
Commissioner of Endowments, .... Opposite Parties
Odisha and others
Mr. A.K. Nath, Advocate
(for O.P. no.1)
Mr. N.K. Deo, Advocate
(for O.P. no.2)
CORAM:
JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
ORDER
Order No. 02.05.2023
02. 1. Mr. Mishra, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of
petitioner and submits, there is adjudication pending in a proceeding under section 30 in Odisha Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951, regarding succeeding to the office. In the meantime, without reference to the parties, impugned order dated 13th October, 2022 was made appointing opposite party no.2 to discharge function of hereditary trustee till disposal of the proceeding. He submits, his client's challenge is covered by order dated 21st December, 2022 made by this Bench in WP(C) no.32915 of 2022 (Tripati Padhi @ Tripati Das v. Commissioner of Endowments, Odisha and others).
2. Mr. Nath, learned advocate appears on behalf of the Commissioner and submits, impugned order was made in exercising power under sub-section (3) in section 30.
3. Mr. Deo, learned advocate appears on behalf of opposite party no.2 and submits, his client had moved office of the Commissioner on the management side. Hence, the Commissioner exercised discretion in appointing him. The order of appointment was not made on the judicial side, for there to have been issuance of notice to the parties in the section 30 proceeding.
4. Section 30 deals with filling up of vacancies in the office of hereditary trustee. There is a pending proceeding regarding filling up of vacancy, occurred by death of Mahanta Padma Charan Das. This stands recorded in impugned order. Hence, where there is challenge pending regarding whether or not opposite party no.2 is the Chela, there obviously are other claimants for being appointed as hereditary trustee. One of the contingencies provided under section 30 (3) is that when the vacancy cannot be filled up immediately as there is a dispute respecting the person, who is Page 2 of 3 entitled to act as such guardian, the Commissioner may appoint a fit person. To appoint, even temporarily, the person, whose entitlement to act as guardian is disputed, without hearing the contestants would amount to violation of principles of natural justice.
5. Impugned order is set aside and quashed. This will not prevent the Commissioner from taking steps to appoint a fit person in the facts and circumstances, upon noticing the parties.
6. Mr. Deo submits, there be direction for the Commissioner to promptly appoint. His submission stands recorded for the Commissioner to act.
7. The writ petition is disposed of.
(Arindam Sinha) Judge (S.K. Mishra) Judge P.Pradhan PRASANT Digitally signed by PRASANT KUMAR KUMAR PRADHAN Date: 2023.05.02 PRADHAN 18:57:18 +05'30' Page 3 of 3