This matter is taken up through video conferencing.

1. Heard Mr. P.K. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate.

2. The petitioner, in this writ petition challenges the order dated 01.03.2019 passed by opposite party no.1 permitting sale of the Deity's property at a throw away lower price and to proceed with the auction in violation of fair and transparent manner without any reason assigned thereof while dissenting with the judgment dated 11.12.2018 passed by the learned Commissioner of Endowments, Odisha, Bhubaneswar in O.A. No. 08 of 2004 under section 19 of the Odisha Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951, hereinafter to be referred as the 'OHRE Act'.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the deity, Radha Krishna Lalita Temple, Bije Hinjili in the district of Ganjam through its Interim Trustee, had filed an application under section 19 of the OHRE Act, before the learned Commissioner of Endowments for according permission of sale of the lands as mentioned in the schedule of the petition. The said application was registered as O.A. No. 08 of 2004. It has been stated by the deity-institution that the landed properties of the deity-institution are under the possession of the tenants, who are paying Raj-bhog under the O.L.R. Act. Due to promulgation of the O.L.R. Act, the income of the temple has been reduced and it is difficult to manage the temple with the limited income. The institution is also facing difficulties in protecting the land from the greedy eye of the land grabbers. The institution is not getting any income from the case schedule land. Therefore, the sale of the lands in question is essential and beneficial for the institution, if the sale proceeds will be deposited in any Nationalized Bank. Accordingly, it was proposed to sell the land at the prevailing market rate and to keep the sale proceeds in fixed deposit scheme so that it will earn better revenue in shape of interest.

4. Public notice as required under Section 19 of the OHRE Act was published in the locality inviting objections from the Hindu Public against the proposed sale, but no-body came forward to file any objection.

5. Learned Commissioner of Endowments vide judgment dated 11.12.2018 allowed the appeal and directed that the land as per the schedule is to be put to public auction with the upset price @ Rs. 70,00,000/- (rupees seventy lakhs) per acre. He has also directed that the auction shall be conducted in the presence of the Addl. Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Berhampur as well as the Local Inspector of Endowments with a condition that at least 30 days prior to the date of public auction, it shall be advertised by beat of drums in the locality as well as by publication in any daily Oriya newspapers like Dharitri, Samaj, Sambad, Samay etc or English daily like Times of India etc. having wide circulation in the locality. If necessary, the deity-institution during the public auction, in order to maintain law and order situation shall take the help of the local police. The sale proceeds shall be kept in any Nationalized Bank under long term fixed deposit scheme in the name of the deity Sri Radha Krushna Lalita Temple; it shall be pledged in favour of the Commissioner of Endowments, Odisha, Bhubaneswar. The sale shall be effected within six months after expiry of the period of appeal/revision, if no appeal/ revision is preferred in the meanwhile, and in case of appeal or revision, then subject to orders of such Appellate/Revisional Authority. Amended provision of section 19 (c) (i) of the O.H.R.E. Act shall be strictly followed. Accordingly the copy of the judgment was sent to the Government in Law Department/ Additional Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Berhampur, the concerned Inspector of Endowments and to the deity- institution for their information and necessary action.

6. The copy of the order was also sent to the concerned Sub- Registrar, where the sale deeds are to be executed and he was requested to see that the sale proceeds has been kept in any Nationalized Bank in favour of the deity-institution under the long term fixed deposit scheme as directed in the order, while making over the original sale deed to the vendee(s).

7. After such award was passed by the learned Commissioner of Endowments, the Deity-institution, represented through the Interim Trustee filed an Appeal as provided under Section 19 (4) of the OHRE Act, which was registered as Appeal No. 02 of 2019. The said appeal was disposed by opposite party no.1 on 01.03.2019, wherein the upset price fixed by the learned Commissioner of Endowments was reduced by enhancing 10% over the Bench Mark Valuation. So far as the process of auction is concerned, it was directed that the auction shall be conducted in the presence of the Inspector of Endowments, Berhampur and at least 15 days prior to the date of public auction, it shall be advertised by beat of drums in the locality.

8. The present petitioner, who is a Hindu Public and an intending purchaser of the property subject to auction, filed this writ petition challenging the order passed by opposite party no.1 on the ground that without assigning any reason, opposite party no.1 has reduced the upset price, which on the face of it, is not fair and detrimental to the interest of the deity. Similarly the manner of holding the auction as has been fixed by the learned Commissioner of Endowments, i.e. making large scale paper publication, inviting bidders to participate in the bid and the presence of Addl. Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Berhampur, were given a go-bye by the order passed by opposite party no.1. He has only directed for auction in presence of Inspector of Endowments and 15 days prior to auction, biting of drums in the locality is to be made. According to learned counsel for the petitioner without following the principle of transparency and fair-play auction has been conducted in presence of three persons fixing the upset price at Rs.1,24,14,611/- and the collusive highest bidder has quoted Rs.1,40,00,000/- to purchase more than Ac.7.871 dec of the properties of the deity, whose market value is at present more than Rs.5.00 crores. Such action of opposite party no.1 is highly detrimental to the deity's interest and by such process the properties of the deity has been grabbed in a collusive auction. However due to public objection, the sale deed in favour of the auction purchaser has not yet been registered. Opposite party no.1 has also passed the order without any notice to the Hindu Public.

9. On perusal of both the orders, it is apparent on the face of it that, the learned Commissioner of Endowments had formulated a detailed procedure as to how the auction is to be held, so that it should be conducted in a fair and transparent manner, more bidders should be participated and the property would fetch more money, which will be in the interest of the deity-institution. However the procedure fixed by opposite party no.1 for auction, is not fair and not in the interest of the deity and by such procedure, the institution is going to lose monetary benefits also. Similarly specific bench mark valuation has not been fixed by opposite party no.1 while interfering with the Bench Mark valuation fixed by the learned Commissioner of Endowments. Here the State Government is also not interested nor willing to keep the property, as provided under Section 19-C of the OHRE Act.

10. Section-19 prescribes Alienation of immovable trust property. Under Sub-Section (1) it has been indicated that

"Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force no transfer by exchange, sale or mortgage and no lease for a term exceeding five years of any immovable property belonging to, or given or endowed for the purpose of, any religious institution, shall be made unless it is sanctioned by the Commissioner as being necessary or beneficial to the institution and no such transfer shall be valid or operative unless it is so sanctioned."

11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Kranti Asso. Pvt. Ltd & Another vs. Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496 [LQ/SC/2010/939 ;] ">(2010) 9 SCC 496 [LQ/SC/2010/939 ;] [LQ/SC/2010/939 ;] relied on catena of decisions and while summarizing such decisions, observed that as follows:-

"a. In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.

b. A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions.

c. Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well.

d. Recording of reasons also operatives as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi judicial or even administrative power.

e. Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations.

f. Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies.

g. Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior Courts.

h. The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the life blood of judicial decision making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice.

i. Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system.

j. Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency.

k. If a Judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism.

l. Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or `rubber-stamp reasons' is not to be equated with a valid decision making process.

m. It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision making not only makes the judges and decision makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor (1987) 100 Harward Law Review 731-737).

n. Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See (1994) 19 EHRR 553, at 562 para 29 and Anya vs. University of Oxford, 2001 EWCA Civ 405, wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of European Convention of Human Rights which requires, "adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions".

o. In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "Due Process".

12. The Apex Court in the case of Jagtamba Devi v. Hem Ram and others, reported in (2008) 3 SCC 509 [LQ/SC/2008/246] at paragraph-10 while quoting a decision in the case of Lord Denning, M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engg. Union reported in (1971) 2 QB 175, observed that

" The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration'. In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree, reported in 1974 ICR 120 it was observed that Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before Court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking out. The "inscrutable face of a sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi- judicial performance."

13. In the instant case, opposite party no.1 while passing the impugned order in the appeal has not assigned any reason as to why/how he is dissenting with the order of the learned Commissioner of Endowments. Such order of opposite party no.1 is a non-reasoned and non-speaking order.

14. In view of the above, since on the face of the order, it is apparent that the order under Annexure-1 is neither fair nor in the interest of the deity or beneficial to the institution and a nullity in the eye of law being not a reasoned/speaking one, this Court is inclined to quash the same. Accordingly the order passed by opposite party no.1 dated 01.03.2019 under Annexure-1 is quashed. This Court restores the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Endowments dated 11.12.2018 in O.A. No. 08 of 2004 and directs the opposite parties to proceed with the auction as per the procedure and upset price fixed by the learned Commissioner of Endowments and complete the entire exercise within a period of two months from today. Since this Court has quashed the order passed by opposite party no.1 dated 01.03.2019 under Annexure-1, the process of auction started, if any, pursuant to such order under Annexure-1 is also quashed. Opposite party no.5 is directed to take fresh step as directed by the learned Commissioner of Endowments in its order dated 11.12.2018 in O.A. No. 8 of 2009.

15. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of.

16. As the Lock-down period is continuing for COVID- 19, the parties may utilize the soft copy of this order available in the High Court's website or print out thereof at par with the certified copies in the manner prescribed vide Court's Notice No.4587 dated 25.03.2020.