Orissa High Court
Salila Ranjan Dixit vs Commissioner Of Endowments on 10 April, 2025
Author: B.P. Routray
Bench: B.P. Routray
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 8172 of 2025
(In the matter of an application under Article 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India)
Salila Ranjan Dixit ...... Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner of Endowments,
Bhubaneswar and others ....... Opp. Parties
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
For Petitioner : Mr. Ramakanta Mohanty, Senior Advocate
along with Mr. A. Acharya, Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Mr. A.K. Nath, Advocate (for O.P. No.1)
Mr. Sanatan Das, Advocate (for O.P.2)
Mr. Akshaya Kumar Pandey, Advocate
(for O.P. No. 3)
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY
AND
HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
JUDGMENT
10.04.2025
B.P. Routray,J.
1. Heard Mr. Ramakanta Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel along
with Mr. A. Acharya, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Akshaya
Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.3, Mr. Sanatan
Das, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2 and Mr. A.K. Nath,
learned counsel for Opposite Party No.1.
2. The challenge in the present writ petition is the order under
Annexure-1, wherein opposite party no.3 has been allowed to run 'Dipa
Shop' taking over charge of the same in the temple premises of the
deity, i.e. Maa Mangal Temple, Kakatpur, for the period from 1st March
2025 to 26th November 2025 on payment of the offered amount of
Rs.72,00,000/-.
3. The background facts of the case are that, at the first instance the
'Dipa Shop' was auctioned wherein one Sunil Kumar Das was selected
as the successful bidder. But subsequently his bid was cancelled for
violation of Clause (v) of the NIT. Thereafter, as per the decision taken
by the Endowment Authorities, the temple trust board vide its Notice
No. 696 dated 22.12.2024, issued notice for allocation of Dipa Shop on
negotiation basis. Pursuant to the same, 19 persons took part in the
negotiation offering their respective prices.
4. The present petitioner namely, Salila Ranjan Dixit stood as Fifth
highest offerer and present opposite party no.3 namely, Santanu Kumar
Dixit stood as Sixth highest offerer. The first to Forth highest offerer did
not deposit their amount within the time stipulated by the temple trust
and as such, the next term came to present petitioner as the Fifth highest
offerer.
5. The petitioner vide letter dated 25.01.2025 (Annexure-K/2) was
directed to deposit the offer amount on or before 28.01.2025 as per
80:20 percent basis. According to the opposite parties, particularly, the
Temple Trust Board (opposite party no.2), the petitioner refused to
accept said notice dated 25.01.2025 under Annexure-K/2 and therefore,
the Temple Trust Board proceeded to the Sixth highest offerer, i.e.
present opposite party no.3, as per decision taken by the Endowment
Authorities on 18.02.2025 under Annexure-C/3. Then the present
opposite party no.3 being the Sixth highest offerer was noticed on
19.02.2025 to deposit the offered amount on the same 80:20 percent
basis. The amount was deposited by opposite party no.3 in due time and
therefore, the 'Dipa Shop' was given to him to run for the period from
01.03.2025 to 26.11.2025.
6. It is now contended on behalf of the petitioner that he was not at
all granted any opportunity to deposit his offered amount and all such
contentions advanced on behalf of the Temple Trust Board and the
private opposite party are false and manipulated. According to the
petitioner, this alleged notice dated 25.01.2025 as per the Annexure-K/2
was never served upon him and he has never refused to accept the same
as stated by the office peon of the temple trust in the back side of said
notice. Conversely, it is alleged by the petitioner that the Temple Trust
Board in connivance with opposite party no.3 has deliberately deprived
the petitioner from getting the shop and in the process the temple has
secured less revenue.
7. It is important to mention here that the offer price given by the
petitioner was to the tune of Rs.75,56,666/- and the offer price given by
opposite party no.3 is Rs.72,00,000/-.
8. It is submitted on behalf of the opposite party no.3 that the
assertions made on the part of the petitioner disputing service of the
notice under Annexure-K/2 on him are falsehood and not at all correct.
The notice dated 25.01.2025 under Annexure-K/2 has not only served
on him but was affixed also in conspicuous places including the notice
board of the temple office. So the petitioner at this stage cannot contend
that said notice to deposit the offer price to him was never brought to his
knowledge.
9. Mr. Sanatan Das, learned counsel on behalf of the Temple Trust
Board submits that as the petitioner did not deposit his offer price within
the time stipulated by the trust board, Temple Trust Board was
compelled to proceed in favour of opposite party no.3 who stood Sixth
highest offerer. There is no other option left to the trust since it was
sustaining loss everyday by not giving the 'Dipa Shop' to manage. Mr.
Das also agrees with the submission of Mr. Pandey, learned counsel
appearing for the opposite party no.2, regarding service of notice on the
petitioner for depositing his offered amount and the affixing of said
notice in temple office notice board and other places.
10. However, as per the averments made in the counter affidavit of
opposite party no.2, affixture of the notice under Annexure-K/2 in the
temple office Notice board or in other conspicuous places of the temple
has not been mentioned specifically, though a statement has been made
that the copies of all letters of intimation were affixed in the temple
office Notice board and at front of the gate of the temple. At this
juncture, it is submitted by Mr. Pandey that he has the photo copies of
affixing such letters in the temple office Notice board and he produces
the same for perusal of the Court. Having gone through such
Photocopies, we do not find the specific dates of affixture of the same.
11. It is also submitted on behalf of opposite party no.3 that non-
joinder of those offerers stood from First to Forth would make the Writ
Petition non-maintainable on the ground non-joinder of necessary
parties. But we respectfully disagree with said submission of Mr.
Pandey for the simple reason that when the parties have accepted the
result without making challenge on their part for their own grievances,
they are not to be treated as necessary parties in the present writ petition.
Be that as it may, since no one else except the Fifth highest offerer has
come to challenge the process of negotiation, we do not consider the
case of the other offerers.
12. In course of hearing, an offer came from the side to opposite party
no.3 that he is ready to pay the differential amount as offered by the
petitioner in the interest of the deity. The petitioner, in reply, submitted
that he is also ready to offer more price in this regard, in the interest of
deity. But we are not inclined to be engaged in the process directly
bringing the competition inside the court room.
13. On the other hand, considering such averments taken by all the
parties, we are satisfied that the notice dated 25.01.2025 under
Annexure-K/2 has not been properly served on the petitioner to deposit
his offer amount. It is for the reason that, first of all, the endorsement
given by one Bapuji Das regarding service of notice on the petitioner
does not speak of his status either as office peon or the process server
and the endorsement given on the back side of said notice does not
speak of witnesses regarding service of said notice. Further, such
endorsement does not mention about time and date of service of the
notice on the petitioner and his refusal. We are unable to find any valid
reason on the part of the petitioner to refuse to accept said notice by him
since it would no way in his benefit to serve any interest on his part and
it was always open for him not to deposit the amount, even after receipt
of said notice. So the contentions made by the opposite parties
highlighting refusal of acceptance of the notice on the part of the
petitioner are unsustainable being devoid of valid reason. So far
regarding the affixture of the said notice in conspicuous places of the
temple, we do not consider the same would amount to sufficiency of
service on the petitioner for depositing the amount within the time
stipulated.
14. Being satisfied that illegality has been done to the petitioner, we
normally proceed in such matters quashing the settlement given in
favour of the other side, but in the instance case, we find a substantial
period has been elapsed by now permitting opposite party no.3 to run
the shop and so, at this time there may arise certain practical difficulties
in giving the shop in favour of the petitioner to run for remaining period,
obviously at a different price.
15. We are not unminded of the fact that here is a case where the shop
has been given upon negotiation and not by way of auction.
16. In the circumstances, keeping in view the fact that considerable
period has been elapsed in the meantime including the month of
'Chaitra', which is the festive month for the temple where more footfall
is usually there in the temple for 'Jhamu Jatra', we are not inclined to
disturb present arrangement with regard to running of the shop till 16 th
April 2025 which is the last day of month of 'Chaitra'.
17. As stated above, as we feel illegality has been committed against
the petitioner by rejecting his offer at the first instance and that, the
Temple Trust Board including Endowment Authorities have proceeded
to settle the shop by way of negotiation instead of auction, which is the
fairest mode, we are inclined to set aside the negotiation process.
18. In the circumstances, the Endowment Authorities and Temple
trust are directed to proceed by way of auction for the rest period of
current Financial Year 2025-26. Consequently, we set aside the
impugned letter under Annexure-1 offering the 'Dipa Shop' in favour of
opposite party no.3 for the remaining period from the prospective date
of finalizing the auction in terms of our direction.
19. We make it clear that the authorities should complete the entire
process of auction within a period of 30 days from today in accordance
with law and till then, i.e. till finalization of auction, status quo as on
today in respect of the 'Dipa Shop' shall be continued. The petitioner
shall be allowed to take part in the upcoming auction along with
opposite party no.3 and others, in accordance with law.
20. It goes without saying that in case of successful auction, if
required, such balance amount for the rest period deposited by opposite
party no.3 for running of the shop may be refunded to him.
21. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations
and directions.
(B.P. Routray)
Judge
Signed by: SUKANTA KUMAR BEHERA (Savitri Ratho)
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Judge
Date: 15-Apr-2025 16:57:15
Sukanta/Puspa
