A.S. Naidu, J.
1. The dispute in the present Writ Petition relates to management of Hara Parbati Thakurani situated at Nimchouri, Chandinichowk of Cuttack Town.
2. The Commissioner of Endowments, Orissa, opposite party No. 1, by his order dated 24th June, 2006 - Annexure-1, in exercise of powers conferred upon him under Section 7 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') appointed eleven persons as interim trustees for a period of two years or till formation of a regular non-hereditary trust board under Section 27 of the Act whichever would be earlier. The said order Annexure-1 was passed, as the order itself reflects, in the interest of the Institution. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioners have approached this Court.
3. The grievance of the petitioners is mainly that the order Annexure-1 has been passed without issuing notice or affording an opportunity of hearing to them who are admittedly in the management of the affairs of the Deity. It is averred by them that the Deity is not a temple within the meaning of the Act, more so because it has no other property except the house in which annual earthen image of the Deity is prepared, worshipped during Dasahara festival and thereafter emerged. Similarly, images of Deity Kartikeswar and Deity Ganesh are prepared, worshipped and emerged in the aforesaid sequence. The petitioners have also challenged the appointment of opposite party No. 3 as an interim trustee of the Deity on some allegations.
4. Mr. S.P. Misra, learned Counsel for the petitioners, in course of hearing laid emphasis as to the nature of the Institution and submitted that the same is a registered society and thus is outside the purview of the Act. He also raised several allegations against opposite party No. 3 inter alia he being a person interested, having misappropriated the funds of the Deity, having purchased lands of the Deity and so on and so forth, and thus being disqualified to be an interim trustee.
5. After receiving Rule, opposite parties 3 to 8 and 10 to 12 have appeared and filed a joint counter-affidavit. According to the said opposite parties the Institution and its properties are grossly mismanaged by person in charge who claims himself to be the General Secretary of the Society. It is alleged that with the sole aim to gain profit to himself out of the Institution and to grab the Institution the said persons is acting as so-called General Secretary. Several allegations of malfeasance and misfeasance have also been made.
A rejoinder affidavit has of course been filed by the petitioners denying some of the allegations made in the counter-affidavit.
6. Dr. A. K. Rath, learned Counsel appearing for the Endowment Department, produced the entire file relating to the Institution in question and submitted that after due enquiry and on the basis of a report submitted by the Endowment Inspector and other officials, the Commissioner of Endowments being satisfied that there was gross mismanagement of the Institution, for its better management, by exercising his general power of superintendence has passed the order Annexure-1 constituting an interim trust board. The said order Annexure-1, according to Dr. Rath, is just, proper and in consonance with the provisions of the Act. Dr. Rath strongly repudiated the submission of Mr. S.P. Misra that the Institution being a society does not come within the purview of the Act.
7. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the pleadings as also the file produced by Dr. Rath.
8. Section 3(xv) of the Act defines 'Temple' as follows:.a place by whatever designation known, used as a place of public religious worship and dedicated to or for the benefit of, or used as of right by, a Hindu community, or any class or section thereof, as a place of public religious worship and also includes any cultural institution or Mandap or library connected with such a place of public religious worship.
9. The question as to whether a society registered under the Societies Registration Act where there is no permanent deity, but then every year deities are prepared, worshipped and emerged would be covered under the Act or not, came before this Court earlier in the case of Rajdhani Puja Samittee. After discussing different provisions of the Act, this Court came to the conclusion that such a society satisfied the definition of 'Temple' and was covered under the Act. The said dispute was then carried to Supreme Court in the case of Hindu Public and Anr. etc. v. Rajdhani Puja Samittee and Ors. and the Supreme Court confirmed the judgment passed by this Court vide : [1999]1SCR635 . Thus the submission of Mr. Misra that the Institution in question being not a temple prima facie cannot be accepted at this stage specially in view of the fact that the petitioners have their liberty to seek such a declaration under Section 41 of the Act. This Court, therefore, refrains itself from delving into the said dispute any further and finds that the Institution would be subject to the power of superintendence of the Commissioner of Endowments for the time being, or till the nature of the institution is decided.
10. The second question raised by Mr. Misra is with regard to the power of the Commissioner under Section 7 of the Act. He submitted that without initiating a proceeding, no interim trustee could have been appointed by the said authority.
11. Section 7 of the Act vests authority on the Commissioner to exercise power of general superintendence on all Hindu religious institutions and endowments. The Commissioner's power under that Section is very wide, but then the same is to be exercised only to ensure that a religious institution and endowment is properly maintained and/or administered. If the Commissioner on the basis of reports submitted to him and/or otherwise is satisfied that a Hindu public religious institution and endowment is not properly managed or administered and or there is any allegation of malfeasance or misfeasance and misappropriation of funds of properties, he has the jurisdiction and authority to exercise his power of superintendence for the benefit of the Institution and better management of the endowments. Such power is over and above other provisions of the Act. A perusal of the Section itself reveals that arrangement made in that regard by the Commissioner is only temporary and cannot be permanent in nature. In the case at hand. A perusal of the file produced by the Endowment Department reveals that a number of allegations were received from the inhabitants of the locality against the person in management and the Inspector of Endowments, Cuttack being directed made an enquiry and submitted a report to the Commissioner. The said Inspector, as it appears from his report, visited the Institution, conducted an enquiry and was satisfied that there was mismanagement. It also appears that before 'formation of the interim trust board, public notice was issued calling for objections and thereafter the Commissioner being satisfied appointed the interim trustees, that too for a period of two years, or formation of a regular trust board under Section 27 of the Act whichever would be earlier.
12. The order Annexure-1 reveals that eleven persons have been appointed as interim trustees, of whom one is a retired District Judge, one is a retired Professor of Economics, one is a retired OFS Officer, one is a Lecturer, two are Advocates staying in the vicinity and others are very renowned persons of the locality opposite party No. 3 being one of them. According to the Act, a trust board functions on majority view. Thus only because there are allegations against one trustee out of eleven, it cannot be said that the trust board cannot properly function.
13. The file produced by the Endowment Department further reveals that no objection was received from any quarter with regard to ineligibility or otherwise of the aforesaid eleven members selected and appointed as interim trustees. Law is well settled that if any person is aggrieved by any action taken by the authorities under the Act mainly on the ground that the Institution is question is not a Hindu public religious Endowment, it is open to him to initiate a proceeding under Section 41 of the Act seeking a declaration to that effect. All disputes as to whether the Institution in question is a Hindu public religious Endowment, or a temple or a Math has to be agitated under Section 41 of the Act before the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments concerned and the said authority has jurisdiction to decide the disputes/ matters in the manner more specifically stipulated under the said Act.
14. In view of the aforesaid clear position of law and the discussions made above, this Court finds that the order Annexure-1 appointing interim trustees does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality calling for any interference.
15. This Court therefore disposes of the Writ Petition accordingly.