IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9493 of 2010 1. MAHANTH BISHAMBHAR SHARAN DEO CHELA OF LATE MAHANTH RAS BIHARI SHARAN DASJEE MAHANTH OF KOELADEWA MATH, SITUATED IN VILL.- KOELADEWA, P.S. MIRGANJ, DISTT.- GOPALGANJ Versus 1. BIHAR STATE BOARD OF RELIGIOUS TRUST THROUGH ITS SECRETARY BIHAR STATE BOARD OF RELIGIOUS TRUST, PATNA 2. ADMINISTRATOR-CUM-SPECIAL OFFICER INCHARGE BIHAR STATE BOARD OF RELIGIOUS TRUSTS, VIDYAPATI MARG, PATNA 3. SRI BHAGWATI SARAN DEOJEE SO CALLED CHELLA OF LATE SHYAM SUNDAR SARAN DASJEE VILL.- KOELADEWA, P.S. MIRGANJ, DISTT.- GOPALGANJ 4. SRI HEM KANT SARAN DEOJEE CHELLA OF SRI BHAGWATI SARAN DEOJEE VILL.- KOELADEWA, P.S.- MIRGANJ, DISTT.- GOPALGANJ ----------- 4. 27.01.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, for the Bihar State Board of Religious Trust and for private respondents 3 and 4. The petitioner claims to be the rightful Mahanth of Koeladewa Math. He is aggrieved by the orders dated 5.1.2009 and 20.2.2009 of the respondent Board. By the impugned orders on a request by the respondent no. 3 claiming to be the Mahanth, respondent no. 4 has been nominated as the successor Mahanth and appropriate directions in that regard issued by the latter order. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has specifically asserted in the writ petition that the trust is a private trust and not a public trust. The respondent Board therefore has no jurisdiction in the matter. The petitioner has further asserted that the respondent no. 3 was declared to have no locus in the trust by judgment in Title Suit No. 709 of 2002 and therefore the impugned orders treating him as Mahanth is contrary to law. Learned Counsel for the Board submits that these questions have been raised by the petitioner for the first time in the writ petition without inviting attention of the Board to the same. Even if that be so, the petitioner has asserted these facts in the writ petition. Dealing with the question whether the trust was private or public, the Board in its counter affidavit submits that it was competent to decide the issue. The counter affidavit is completely silent with regard to title Suit No. 709 of 2002. If what the petitioner contends is correct, factually the matters may go at the root of exercise of the powers by the respondent Board as also the correctness of the same even if it has jurisdiction to decide the issues. The impugned orders are therefore not sustainable in their present form. If the petitioner appears before the respondent Board along with a copy of the present order within a maximum period of two weeks from today, let the Board decide issues in accordance with law after hearing the parties concerned and dispose it off by a reasoned and speaking order discussing all aspects within a maximum period of one month from the date of receipt and/or presentation of a copy of this order. In the meantime operation of the impugned orders shall remain in abeyance to abide by the fresh final decision to be taken by the Board. The Board shall be at liberty to make appropriate interim arrangements in the interest of the trust but which cannot include either the petitioner or private respondents 3 and 4. The writ application stands disposed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)