Orissa High Court
Sachimani Paikray And Others vs The State Of Odisha And Another on 13 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.24318 of 2022
(Through Hybrid mode)
Sachimani Paikray and others .... Petitioners
Mr. S. K. Choudhury, Advocate
-versus-
The State of Odisha and another .... Opposite Parties
Mr. A. K. Sharma, AGA
Ms. P. Naidu, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
ORDER
13.01.2023
Order No.
7. 1. Mr. Choudhury, learned advocate appears on behalf of
petitioners and submits, on requirement by the registering authority,
to produce 'No Objection' certificate, obtained from the
Commissioner of Endowments, his clients applied for the same. By
impugned judgment dated 18th May, 2019, the Commissioner of
Endowments imposed condition of making fixed deposit to be
pledged in favour of the Commissioner and restrictions on dealing
with the accruals. He refers to sections 1 and 19-A in Odisha Hindu
// 2 //
Religious Endowments Act, 1951 to demonstrate that the Legislature
mandated control thereby of public religious institutions. He submits,
the Commissioner did so on finding his clients had private deity.
2. He relies on views taken by two divisions Benches of the
Court. firstly, order dated 3rd March, 2020 in W.P.(C) no.29423 of
2019 (Sachimani Paikray and others vs. State of Odisha and
another), from where a passage is extracted and reproduced below.
"The same also makes it clear that such "No Objection
Certificate" has to be granted in Form-AA and nowhere
the learned Commissioner is empowered to put conditions
while granting such certificate."
Secondly, Gopal v. State, reported in 2021 (II) OLR 947.
Paragraph 8 in the judgment is reproduced below.
"8. A harmonious reading of Section 19-A and Rule 4A
makes it clear that Section 19A cannot be confined to the
public religious institution only. Thus, any institution for
which an order under Section 19-A is required, the learned
Commissioner on an application can issue a NOC in the
manner prescribed under Rule 4-A. in the instant case, the
institution has been declared as a private religious
institution by the learned Commissioner in an appeal (FA
No.14 of 1975) under Section 44 of the Endowments Act.
Thus, while issuing NOC, the learned Commissioner has to
adhere to the procedure prescribed under Rule 4-A of the
Endowment Rules. As held in Laxmi Narayan Thakur
// 3 //
(supra) neither Rule 4-A nor Form AA empowers the
learned Commissioner to put any condition while granting
NOC."
3. Ms. Naidu, learned advocate appears on behalf of
Commissioner and points out from paragraph 2 in impugned
judgment that there is record, petitioners having decided to sell away
the case land would deposit the sale profits in any nationalized bank
in the name of the deity on long term basis. Interest accrued
therefrom will be utilized for daily seba pooja and niti kanti of the
deity. On such position taken the Commissioner had directed as
done by impugned judgment. Mr. Choudhury in reply submits, that
was intention expressed. It could not be converted into conditions
imposed.
4. We accept the view of aforesaid co-ordinate Benches. We
respectfully agree that while issuing NOC, the Commissioner has to
adhere the procedure prescribed under rule 4-A in Odisha Hindu
Religious Endowments Rules, 1959. Neither rule 4-A made nor
Form AA empowers the commissioner to put any condition while
granting NOC.
5. Impugned judgment is set aside and quashed. The
Commissioner is directed to forthwith issue 'No Objection'
certificate in prescribed form.
// 4 //
6. The writ petition is disposed of.
( Arindam Sinha )
Judge
( S. K. Mishra )
Judge
Prasant
