Dismissed

Villagers of Achalakot Village v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC7 Sept 2020WP(C)/16050/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses a writ petition challenging the proposal to appoint temple servitors as members of a non-hereditary Trust Board. The court held that such servitors do not have disqualifying interests under the Odisha Hindu Religious Endowments Act as their religious duties differ from administrative services or contracts.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed; the orders recommending the constitution of the NHT Board remain valid; the interim order stands vacated.

Villagers of Achalakot Village Vs State of Odisha — Writ and Judicial Review | Orissa HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.(C) No. 16050 of 2020

¶2

07.09.2020 Heard Mr.H.N.Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.A.K.Nath, learned counsel opposite parties 2, 3 and 4 through Video Conferencing mode.

¶3

Petitioners in this writ petition assails the proposal for constitution of non-hereditary Trust Board of Shree Jagannath Jew Bije, Achalakota Temple Trust and seek for a direction to the Secretary, Department of Law, Government of Odisha, Bhubaneswar (OP No.1) not to approve the constitution of the non-hereditary Trust Board (for short ‘NHT Board’) of the aforesaid temple.

¶4

¶5

Mr.Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the proposal for constitution of the NHT Board is violative of Section 29 of the Odisha Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 (for short, ‘OHRE Act’), inasmuch as the servitors of the temple have been included in the Trust Board. It is his submission that the same is in violation of Section 29 (1)(e) and (f) of the OHRE Act. The servitors have been enjoying the property of the institution for affording Seva Puja to the deity. They are also performing service undertaken by the institution by affording such Seva Puja. Thus, they are disqualified to be the members of NHT Board of the deity. He also submits that the Additional Assistant Commissioner of Endowments (OP No.3) has not followed due to procedure of law while

¶6

¶7

recommending the constitution of NHT Board. He therefore, prays for the aforesaid relief.

¶8

Mr.Nath, learned counsel for the Commissioner of Endowments submits that the constitution of NHT Board is in accordance with law and due procedure of law has been followed while recommending constitution of the NHT Board.

¶9

It appears that the members of the NHT Board, whose interest is likely to be affected, if any order is passed in favour of the petitioners, are not made parties to the writ petition. The institution in question is also not a party to the writ petition.

¶10

Before delving into the rival contentions of the parties, on perusal of the writ petition, it would be profitable to refer to Section 29 (1) (e) and (f) of the OHRE Act, which is quoted hereunder:-

¶11

“ 29. (1) A person shall be disqualified for appointment as a trustee, if he—

¶12

xx xx xx

¶13

(e) has directly or indirectly any interest in a lease or any other transaction relating to the property of the institution;

¶14

(f) is a paid employee of the institution or has any share or interest in a contract for the supply of goods to, or the execution of any works or the performance of any service undertaken by the institution;

¶15

xx xx xx”

¶16

It is, thus clear from the aforesaid provision that a person shall be disqualified for appointment as an

¶17

¶18

Trustee if he has directly, or indirectly, any interest in a lease or any other transaction relating to the property of the institution and is a paid employee of the institution or has any share or any interest in a contract for the supply of goods or execution of any work or performance of any service undertaken by the institution.

¶19

Mr. Mohapatra, could not produce any material to come to a conclusion that the servitors whose names are recommended to be the members of the proposed NHT Board have any direct or indirect interest in the lease or any other transaction relating to the property of the institution. Usually, the servitors are allowed to enjoy the usufructs of certain immovable properties of the institution in lieu of their Seva Puja. Thus, the same cannot come under the purview of Section 29(1)(e) of the OHRE Act.

¶20

6.1 Further, a servitor can, by no stretch of imagination, be treated to be a paid employee of the institution. There is no material on record to show that the servitors who are proposed to be the members of the NHT Board have any share or interest for contract of supply of goods to the institution. In addition to the above, the performance of Seva Puja of the deity cannot be equated with execution of any work or performance of any service undertaken by the institution. Performance of Seva Puja as per rituals of the deity does not fall

¶21

¶22

within the scope and ambit of Section 29 (1) (f) of the OHRE Act. Section 29(1)(f) deals with execution of work or performance of service in the administrative side of the religious institution and not with performance of Seva Puja and rituals, which are religious in nature.

¶23

Although several other contentions are raised, but the petitioners failed to produce any material in support of the same. In that view of the matter, the writ petition being devoid of any merit stands dismissed. No costs.

¶24

In view of dismissal of the writ petition, the interim order dated 29.07.2020 passed in IA No.7507 of 2020 stands vacated.

¶25

8.1 As lock-down period is continuing for COVID19, the soft copy of this order available in the High Court’s website or print out thereof at par with certified copies in the manner prescribed, vide Court’s Notice No.4587 dated 25.03.2020 can be utilized.

…………………..

S. Panda, J.

…………………………..

K.R. Mohapatra, J.

¶30

Villagers of Achalakot Village v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Villagers of Achalakot Village v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saxony Holiday Resort Pvt.Ltd. Vs the Collector, Bhadrak

Basant Kumar Behera Vs State of Odisha

M Tech Innovations Ltd. Vs Commissioner Cum Secretary

State of Odisha Vs Aparna Sinha

Villagers of Achalakot Village Vs State of Odisha

T.S. Alloys Thika Majdoor Sabha Vs State of Odisha