Sri Sri Sri Sidha Bhairabi vs State Of Odisha And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 8643 Ori

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                            W.P.(C) No.4175 of 2019

            Sri Sri Sri Sidha Bhairabi              ....             Petitioner
            Sankranti Puja Committee
                                         Miss Deepali Mahapatra, Advocate

                                         -versus-
            State of Odisha and others           ....    Opposite Parties
                                    Mr. Prasanna Kumar Parhi, Advocate
                                               (For Opposite Party No.7)

                       CORAM:
                       JUSTICE S.K.MISHRA
                       JUSTICE K.R.MOHAPATRA
                                       ORDER

18.08.2021 Order No.

24. 1. This matter is taken up by hybrid mode.

2. In this writ petition, the Petitioner-Sri Sri Sri Sidha Bhairabi Sankranti Puja Committee (for short, 'the Committee') represented through its President, namely, Purna Chandra Sahoo has prayed to issue a writ of Certiorari and quash letter dated 8th August, 2018 (Annexure-2) issued by Commissioner of Endowments, Odisha, Bhubaneswar- Opposite Party No.2 in exercise of power under Section 7 of the Odisha Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 (for short 'the Act') appointing the Sub-Collector, Berhampur as Interim Trustee of the said institution, i.e., Sri Sri Sri Sidha Bhairabi Thakurani Bije at village Mantridi in Ganjam district (for short

// 2 //

'the Deity') in view of judgment dated 10th August, 2017 passed in T.S. No.123 of 2002 under Annexure-7.

3. We have heard Miss Mahapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr.Parhi, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.7.

4. On the face of record, the Petitioner failed to establish that the Society or the Petitioner-Committee is either recognized as a Hereditary Trustee or Non-Hereditary Trustee of the Deity. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that in an order passed under Section 7 of the Act to appoint the Sub- Collector, Berhampur as Interim Management/Trustee of the Deity, a notice is necessary to be served on the Petitioner- Committee as they are managing the administration/Seva Puja of the Deity for last thirty years. It is also submitted that the Deity is a private Deity and Section 7 of the Act will not be applicable.

5. Firstly, it is seen from Section 41 of the Act, more specifically from the proviso that the burden is always on the party who claims the institution to be private deity. As yet litigation regarding declaring the deity as a private deity is not put in quietus. Secondly, Section 7 of the Act does not make difference between a private deity and public deity. In this case, in order to maintain the discipline and continue with Seva Puja of the deity, the Endowment Commissioner is competent and has passed appropriate order. Further, the President of the

// 3 //

Committee and one Bhaskar Rana being intervened as Opposite Party No.7 are claiming to be the Hereditary Trustee of the deity, which has led the Commissioner of Endowments to pass the order under Annexure-2 appointing the Sub-Collector, Berhampur to be the Interim Trustee of the institution.

5. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that there is no plausible ground to interfere with the impugned order as at Annexure-2. Accordingly, the writ petition merits no consideration and the same stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

6. Interim order dated 13th March, 20219 passed in IA No.3607 of 2019 stands vacated.

Issue urgent certified copy of the order on proper application.

(S.K.Mishra) Judge

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge s.s.satapathy