AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mr. Tripathy, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, appeal under section 32(2) of Odisha Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951, preferred by his client against the order of punishment was rejected. His client was not given opportunity to answer the allegations. Order of removal dated 10th March, 2011 was made by the Collector in summary manner. Subsequently, on the same day, allegation of complaint against his client was taken cognizance. His client had moved this Court and there was direction for de novo enquiry. In seeking the de novo enquiry, his client submitted joining report but the matter regarding whether or not he should join resulted in his client’s removal from office, as confirmed in the appeal. He submits, purported inventory was made in his client’s absence. Report of the inventory was not given to his client. As such, his client was prevented from placing his case against the allegations.
Mr. Sharma, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of State and Mr. Nath, learned advocate, for the Commissioner. Mr. Mohanty, learned advocate appears on behalf of opposite party nos.5 and 6.
Before proceeding further including calling for response from appearing opposite parties, petitioner’s attention is drawn to order dated 28th December, 2013 passed by the Collector and District Magistrate. In it stands stated what was found in the inventory made on 22nd March, 2011. Mr. Tripathy submits, on that basis his client will file additional affidavit. He wants ten days’ time.
Petitioner has leave to file additional affidavit, to be accepted on adjourned date upon advance copies served.
List on10th July, 2023.
…………………………………