Orissa High Court
Harihar Pradhan And Others vs State Of Odisha And Others on 20 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.18672 of 2022
(Through Hybrid mode)
Harihar Pradhan and others .... Petitioners
-Versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
For Petitioners : Mr. Amit Prasad Bose, Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Mr. A. K. Nanda, Advocate (AGA)
(for O.P. no.1)
Ms. Pratyusha Naidu, Advocate
(for O.P. nos.2 and 3)
Mr. S. K. Choudhury, Advocate
(for O.P. nos.4 to 15)
CORAM:
JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
JUSTICE M. S. SAHOO
JUDGMENT
20.01.2023
ARINDAM SINHA, J.
1. Mr. Bose, learned advocate appears on behalf of
petitioners and submits, impugned is order dated 5th July, 2022
made by the Commissioner, purportedly in pursuance of
direction imparted by Government of Odisha, Law Department
on letter dated 10th March, 2022 is unsustainable.
2. He draws attention to order dated 3rd March, 2022,
whereby the Assistant Commissioner, pursuant to Government
of Odisha, Law Department letter dated 20th January, 2022
appointed eleven persons (petitioners) as Non-hereditary
Trustees of the institution. The department, thereafter, by order
dated 10th March, 2022, said to be in supersession of said letter
dated 20th January, 2022, conveyed approval of the Government
under section 27 of Odisha Hindu Religious Endowments Act,
1951, for formation of Non-hereditary Trust Board of the
institution giving eleven names of different persons. He submits,
impugned appointment order, issued pursuant thereto, is illegal
and should be set aside and quashed.
3. Mr. Nanda, learned advocate, Additional Government
Advocate appears on behalf of State. Ms. Naidu, learned
advocate appears on behalf of the Commissioner. She submits,
by letter dated 15th March, 2022 her client had sought
clarification regarding issuance of the appointment order.
4. Mr. Choudhury, learned advocate appears on behalf of
opposite party nos.5 to 15, who are the appointees by
supersession. He submits, sub-sections (1) and (1-a) in section
27 do allow for modification of proposed names.
5. Section 27 allows for modification of the proposal sent by
the Assistant Commissioner regarding appointment of non-
hereditary trusties. Documents disclosed in the writ petition bear
out the facts. They are that there was original proposal and
approval thereon by the Government on letter dated 20th
January, 2022. It is thereafter that the Government issued letter
dated 10th March, 2022, in supersession of said letter dated 20th
January, 2022. We reproduce first paragraph from said letter.
"In supersession of this Deptt. Letter
No.797/L dtd.20.01.2022 on the above mentioned
subject, I am directed to convey the approval of
Government under section 27 of the O.H.R.E.
Act, 1951 for formation of Non-Hereditary
Trust Board in respect of Sri Nilakantheswar
Deb, At/Po.-Binayakpur Deuli, PS-Pipili, Dist.-
Puri with the following members for a period of
two years from the date of their appointment."
(emphasis supplied)
On query from Court Ms. Naidu submits, there was no further
proposal made, which also remains uncontroverted.
6. Section 24 provides power for modification, as reserved
to the Government, of the proposal made by the Assistant
Commissioner. It appears, subsequent letter dated 10th March,
2022 issued by the Government superseding the Trust Board
appointed by order dated 3rd March, 2022 was not based on any
proposal, for it to be said that names contained in that order had
been approved by it.
7. Impugned order dated 5th July, 2022 is set aside and
quashed with all its consequences, one such being restoration of
order dated 3rd March, 2022.
8. The writ petition is allowed and disposed of.
(Arindam Sinha)
Judge
(M. S .Sahoo)
Judge
R.K.Sethi
