JUSTICE BISWAJIT MOHANTY
The facts of the case were that the petitioners had filed the writ petition questioning the order of Additional District Magistrate, Bhadrak, Opposite Party No.3 (OP No.3) giving various directions for holding election to various posts of office bearers of Bhadrak Bus Syndicate(OP No.6) and consequential order of the Sub-Collector, Bhadrak (OP No.4) on the same subject on the ground that the noted orders/directions had been issued without jurisdiction and by ignoring the relevant provisions of the bye-law of OP No.6 governing the field. Their further case was that holding the election before the outcome of an audit of the financial status of OP No.6 should not be permitted.
The dispute mainly revolved around the question of jurisdiction of OP Nos.3 & 4 in giving detailed directions about holding of election to different posts of office bearers of Bhadrak Bus Syndicate. On the issue of whether the directions of the Addl. District Magistrate, Bhadrak about holding of election of a registered society like OP No.6 was valid, the Court concluded that since the election to various posts of office bearers of OP No. 6 was not done as per the procedure prescribed by the law, all the directions issued by the OP No.3 on the conduct of the election and the consequential directions issued by the Sub-Collector, Bhadrak (OP No.4) were clearly illegal. It was made clear that election, if any, to various posts of office bearers of Bhadrak Bus Syndicate could only be held following the procedure laid down in the amended bye-law and in the event, such an election was held, the Collector and District Magistrate, Bhadrak (OP.No.2) was directed to see to it that the law and order were strictly maintained during such election. While answering a further prayer for holding of the election after completion of the audit, the Court stated that no legal provision had been brought to the notice in support of such prayer. Accordingly, the Court was not inclined to accept such prayer of the petitioners. With such observations and directions, the writ petition was disposed of.
In this case, a revision petition was filed by the Petitioner against the ex-parte judgment of the Family Court initiated u/s 125 CrPC by the opposite party-wife. The facts of the case were that the wife of the petitioner (sole opposite party) filed a petition for the grant of maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month with Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses. The parties came under the Mitakshara School of Hindu law. At the time of marriage, the petitioner was given different household articles, gold ornaments as per his demand as well as his family members. She had been staying at her parents’ house in a miserable condition and sought maintenance, whereby she stated that the petitioner earned more than Rs.30,000/- per month from the betel-cum-stationery shop and agriculture.
The Court noted that from the trial, it was clear that despite receipt of the notice, the petitioner never cared to appear on the dates fixed. Further, the narration of events made it clear that the petitioner was resorting to delaying the proceedings. The order of ex-parte reached its finality on 12th May, 2014 and the said order was not challenged anywhere and there was no plea that the petitioner was not informed by his advocate regarding the passing of such ex-parte order. The Court further stated that the maintenance of Rs.3,000/- a month cannot be described as a huge amount by any stretch of the imagination as the same cannot be even enough to meet the cost of fooding of the opposite party. The Bench held that the impugned order could not be said to suffer from illegality or impropriety and was accordingly dismissed.
The brief facts of this case were such that the deity, Sri Sri Jagannath Mahaprabhu Bije at Kusupur in the district of Puri is a private religious organization as declared under Section 44 of the Endowment Act,1975. The petitioner is the Marfatdar of the family deity established to effectuate the spiritual benefit of the family of the founder. Some landed property had been endowed to the said deity. As the temple was a private religious property and required repairing for its dilapidated state, the petitioner filed for a NOC to alienate the case land along with other properties, as he had no funds to meet the repairing of the temple. While granting the NOC, the learned Commissioner imposed conditions such as the petitioner- hereditary trustee shall have to first offer for sale of the case land as an appeal to the state government under Section 19 of the Endowment act and he would also have to intimate the Commissioner of Endowments about the construction of the temple on the administrative side. The Petitioner being aggrieved by the imposition of such condition filed this writ petition.
The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that Section 19-C of the Endowments Act does not apply to the private religious institution. The said provision was only applicable to the public religious institution. It was also stated that Rule 4-A of the Endowment Rules clearly stipulate that the NOC was required to be issued for alienation of immovable property of a private religious institution if the Commissioner was prima facie satisfied that the institution in question was not a public religious institution for which no sanction under Section 19 of the Act was required.,
The Court held that the Commissioner had traveled beyond its jurisdiction by imposing conditions while granting the NOC and consequently the NOC was not sustainable in the eyes of law. A harmonious reading of Section 19-A and Rule 4A made it clear that Section 19A of the Endowment Act could be confined to the public religious institution only. Thus, any institution for which an order under Section 19-A is required,. the Commissioner on an application could issue a NOC in the manner prescribed under Rule 4-A. In this case, the institution had been declared as a private religious institution by the Commissioner in an appeal under Section 44 of the Endowments Act. Thus, while issuing NOC, the Commissioner had to adhere to the procedure prescribed under Rule 4-A of the Endowment Rules. Thus, the Commissioner was directed to issue fresh NOC without imposing any condition strictly in adherence to Rule 4-A of the Endowments Rules.