Nrusingha Charan Sahoo And vs State Of Odisha And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 1033 Ori

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                              W.P.(C) No.36435 of 2022
                               (Through Hybrid mode)

            Nrusingha Charan Sahoo and               ....                 Petitioners
            another
                                                          Mr. M. K. Dash, Advocate

                                          -versus-


            State of Odisha and others               ....           Opposite Parties

                                                            Ms. P. Naidu, Advocate


            CORAM:
            JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
            JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA


                                     ORDER

31.01.2023 Order No.

01. 1. Mr. Dash, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioners

and submits, impugned order dated 21st February, 2019 is required to

be interfered with to extent that conditions were imposed for grant of

'No Objection Certificate' (NOC) under section 19-A in Odisha

Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951. He submits, his clients'

contention stands covered by judgment dated 27th September, 2021

// 2 //

made by a Division Bench of this Court in Gopal vs. State, reported

in 2021 (II) OLR-947.

2. Ms. Naidu, learned advocate appears on behalf of the

Commissioner and submits, impugned order predates was made prior

to date of judgment in Gopal v. State (supra).

3. There does not appear to be any dispute that Gopal v. State

(supra) holds the field regarding view taken on issuance of NOC in

Form-AA as prescribed by rule 4-A in Odisha Hindu Religious

Endowment Rules, 1959. No conditions can be imposed in granting

the certificate, has been view expressed on the law by the judgment. It

must be taken as correct appreciation of the law, as we respectfully

agree with the view and have also said so by our order dated 13th

January, 2023 in WP(C) no.24318 of 2022 (Sachimani Paikray

and others vs. State of Odisha and another).

4. The Supreme Court in CIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock

Exchange Ltd., reported in (2008) 14 SCC 171, paragraph 35

declared the law regarding judicial pronouncement on

interpretation/appreciation of statutes. It is correct appreciation of the

position in law by the Court and as such, applies retrospectively, in

this case, to impugned order made prior to Gopal v. State (supra).

// 3 //

5. The conditions imposed by impugned order are set aside and

quashed.

6. The writ petition is allowed and disposed of.

( Arindam Sinha ) Judge

( S. K. Mishra ) Judge Prasant