AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mr. Kar, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner, who is Interim Managing Trustee. He submits, his client has challenged order dated 23rd December, 2022 passed by the Commissioner. The order is illegal and made with material irregularity. On query from Court he submits, impugned order was made in revision preferred against order dated 20th December, 2021 passed by the Additional Assistant Commissioner. His client had applied to restrain opposite party no.5 from cultivating the deity’s land and performing the rituals. Prayer in the application was not allowed and it was disposed of. His client then filed revision and made interim application before the Commissioner. By impugned order the interim application was dismissed.
On query from Court he submits, opposite party no.5 is unfit to discharge any function in respect of the deity. He draws attention to first information report (FIR) dated 17th November, 2020 registered by P.S. Bheden on the complaint of one Narayana Badi against seven persons, one of whom is opposite party no.5. The sections being basis of the FIR are sections 294/506/323/324/34 IPC and 3(1)/3(2)(v) under SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. On further query from Court Mr. Kar submits, his client does not have information on whether charge sheet has been filed and the case committed for trial.
Mr. Sharma, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of State. Ms. Naidu, learned advocate appears on behalf of the Commissioner draws attention to page-5 in impugned order and demonstrates that the Commissioner found there is no material to show that opposite party no.5 is not competent or not in a mood to perform the Seva Puja and Nitikanti of the deities, properly.
We have perused impugned order and order dated 20th December, 2021, against which the revision was filed. We find the findings in both orders to be concurrent. They were made upon hearing the parties. In the circumstances, we have not found any reason to interfere.
Mr. Kar submits, there be direction for expeditious disposal of the revision. We accordingly direct that the revision be dealt with by two months from date.
The writ petition is disposed of.
…………………………