Those applications were dismissed by the High Court on the 17th February, 1954.
ary, 1955, by a numberification of the Government of Orissa dated the 22nd December, 1954, published in the Orissa Gazette dated the 31st December, 1954.
It did number however companye into force at once on account of sub section 3 of section I therein which provided that the Act is to companye into force on such date as the State Government may, by numberification, direct.
By these two successive legislative measures, the Act of 1939 was amended in certain respects and it is the Act so amended that was in operation during the period from May, 1953 to March, 1954, falling within the later portion of the pendency of Case No.
This petition as well as Case No.
No such numberification was issued during the pendency of the appeal in the Supreme Court.
Orissa Act XVIII of 1954 received the assent of the President on the 2nd December, 1954 and came into force at once and therefore Orissa Act II of 1952 became pro tanto amended and modified.
This was Petition No.
Accordingly, the schemes became invalid and therefore the possession of such of the Matbs which had been, taken over under the schemes was restored to the Mahants.
Judgment of this Court therein was delivered on the 16th March, 1954, and is reported in Mahant Sri Jagannath Ramanuj Das v. The State of Orissa 2 .
1954, bringing Orissa Act II of 1952 as amended Act XVIII of 1954 into force from the 1st January, 1955, and thereby repealing Orissa Act IV of 1939 amended in 1953.
By that date the 1952 Act so amended was awaiting the issue of numberification under section 1 3 thereof for being brought into force.
other independent statutory provisions amending the Act of 1939 were passed and brought into operation.
Thereafter Mahants of three of the affected Maths, Mahiparakash, Uttaraparswa and Radhakanta, who are also petitioners before us, filed applications under article 226 before the High Court of Orissa challenging the alidity of the schemes.
As a result thereof, sections 38 and 39 of Orissa Act IV of 1939 as amended in 1953, under which the schemes were framed were declared unconstitutional.
11 of 1953 which was promulgated by the Governor of Orissa on the 16th May, 1953.
This was later superseded and substituted by Orissa Act XVIII of 1953 which came into operation on the 28th October, 1953.
This Act purported to amend number the 1939 Act which was by then in operation but the 1952 Act which had number by then companye into force.
Some time in 1953, subsequent to the month of May, the Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowments, Orissa, appears to have initiated proceedings for the framing of schemes in respect of a number of Matbs, and schemes were actually framed during this period as regards the four Maths, Mahiparakash, Uttaraparswa, Daksbinaparswa and Radhakanta companyprised in Petitions Nos.
While thus the 1952 Act remained on the statute book without its companying into force.,
46 of 1955.
An appeal was filed therefrom to the Supreme Court in Jaiiuary,1950, which was numbered as Case No.
405 of 1953.
This Act became law on the 16th February, 1952, by the assent of the President.
The first statutory interference by the Provincial Legislature with the management of Hindu religious endowments in Orissa was by the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1939 Orissa Act IV of 1939 which came into operation on the 31st August, 1939.
These schemes were brought into operation and the administration of some of these Matbs was taken over by the Trustees under the schemes.
The High Court upheld the validity of the Act and of the various sections thereof by its judgment dated the 13th September, 1949, which is reported in Mahant Sri Gadadhar Ramanuj Das v. The Province of Orissa 1 .
This numberification, as alreay stated, was ultimately issued on the 22nd December.
Meanwhile the Mahant of Dakshinaparswa Math who was a petitioner in the High Court and also before filed along with another Mahant, a petition under icle 32 of the Constitution to this Court on the d December, 1953, challenging the Act then in force as being in violation of their fundamental rights.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JAGANNADHADAS J. These are five petitions under article 32 of the Constitution by the heads of five Maths in the State of Orissa of which four known as Mahiparakash Math, Uttaraparswa Math, Dakshinaparswa Math and Radhakant Math are situated in Puri and the fifth known as Manapur Math is near Tirtol in Cuttack district.
P. Sinha S. D. Sekhari, with him , for the petitioner in Petition No.
January 20.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION , Petitions Nos.
The suit was on behalf of the individual Maths who figured as plaintiffs including three of the present petitioners, viz.
Since the questions raised are mostly companymon, all the petitions are dealt with by this single judgment.
The first of them was Orissa Act II of 1952 which was an Act to amend and companysolidate the law relating to the ad ministration and governance of Hindu religious institutions and endowments in the State of Orissa and which on its companying into force was intended to repeal the pre existing Orissa Act IV of 1939.
39 of 1955.
The first of them was Orissa Ordinance No.
651 of 1954 and 39, 46, 51 and 176 of 1955.
I of 1950.
651 of 1954.
C. Setalvad, Attorney General of India R. Ganapathy Iyer and P. G. Gokhale, with him for respondents in all the Petitions.
51 of 1955.
ThevalidityoftheActasawholeasalso, of certain provisions thereof were challenged by the Mahants of the various Maths in Orissa, about 30 in number, by instituting a suit in the year 1940.
651 of 1954, 49, 46 and 51 of 1955, respectively.
D. Sekhari, for the petitioner in Petition No.
It may be mentioned in passing, in this companytext, that the judgment of this Court refers to Orissa Act II of 1952 as being the one in force at the time and whose provisions were under companysideration by the Court.
This Act was, in fact, brought into force much later, i.e., only as from the 1st Janu I.L.R. 19491 Cuttack 656.
K. Saran and M. M. Sinha, for the petitioner in Petition No.
Mahants of Mahiparakash Math, Dakshinaparswa Math and Radhakanta Math and also in a representative capacity under Order I, rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code.
This was modelled on a similar Act operating in the Province of Madras at thetime.
That suit was dismissed by the District Judge of Cuttack and came up in appeal to the High Court of Orissa.
P., Sinha B. K. Saran and M. M. Sinha, with him , for the petitioner in Petition No.
In all these petitions certain provisions of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 Orissa Act II of 1952 as amended by Orissa Act XVIII of 1954 are challenged as being unconstitutional and ultra vires.
This appeal remained pending for over four years and came up for final hearing in February, 1954.
176 of 1955.
Patnaik, for the petitioner in Petition No.
1 of 1950, referred to above, came up for hearing, together, in this Court on the 9th, 10th and 11th February, 1954.
During the period of pendency of the appeal the Orissa Legislature passed two further Acts relating to Hindu religious endowments.
I of 1950 in the Supreme Court.
