Interim Trust Board Appointments Violating Principles Of Natural Justice Are Legally Unsustainable And Liable To Be Vacated

The Petitioner, President of the Brahmin Mahajan Kotha of the religious institution Shree Grameswar Dev Bije Amuri, challenged two orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments.

A proceeding under Section 41 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowment Act, 1951, was pending to declare the temple a public institution without hereditary trustees.

During this pendency, an application under Section 8(2) was filed to protect the deity’s interests following allegations of mismanagement and unauthorized leasing of lands.

Originally scheduled for hearing on 12.09.2025, the Assistant Commissioner, acting on an "advance petition," preponed the matter to 08.09.2025 and passed an ex-parte order appointing an Interim Trust Board (Annexure-1).

Consequently, on 13.09.2025, the Petitioner was directed to handover charge (Annexure-2).

The Petitioner contended he was neither a party to the proceedings nor given an opportunity to be heard.

1. Whether the orders passed under Section 8(2) of the Act appointing an Interim Trust Board were legally sustainable given the lack of notice to the party in management.

2. Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the existence of an alternative statutory remedy under Section 9 of the Act.

Principles of Natural Justice, specifically the right to a fair hearing (audi alteram partem), emphasizing that an order affecting management rights cannot be passed without hearing the aggrieved party.

Section 8(2) of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowment Act, 1951 regarding interim management of religious institutions.

Section 9 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowment Act, 1951 regarding revisional jurisdiction of the Commissioner.

Section 41 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowment Act, 1951 regarding the determination of the status of a religious institution.

The Court observed that the Assistant Commissioner preponed the hearing via an advance petition without notice to the Petitioner, who was actually in management of the institution.

The Court found the procedural lapse—passing an order on 08.09.2025 when the matter was originally posted for 12.09.2025—to be a glaring violation of natural justice.

The Court reasoned that since the Petitioner was being forcibly divested of management through Annexure-2, he was a necessary party entitled to a hearing.

The Court determined that the violation of natural justice was sufficient to bypass the alternative remedy and set aside the impugned orders.

The High Court set aside the appointment of the Interim Trust Board and the direction to handover charge, and remitted the matter to the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Bhubaneswar, with directions to hear the Section 8(2) application afresh after providing all parties, including the Petitioner, an opportunity to be heard, with a further direction for early disposal of the main application under Section 41.