IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9885 of 2010 Sanjay Kumar Mishra, son of Late Yamunadhar Mishra, resident of village-Dawath, P.S. – Dawath, District- Rohtas and Sewait Panch Mandir, Dawath, P.S. Dawath, District-Rohtas. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Bihar State Religious Trust Board Vidyapati Marg, Patna-1 through its Administrator-Cum-Special Executive Officer. 3. The Administrator-Cum-Special Executive Officer Bihar State Religious Trust Board, Vidyapati Marg, Patna. 4. The Circle Officer, Dawath, P.S.-Dawath, District- Rohtas. ------------------------- For the petitioner: Mr. Yugal Kishore, Sr. Advocate Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate. Mrs. Nutan Sahay, Advocate For Bihar State Board of Religious Trust: Mr.Ganesh Trivedi, Advocate Mr. Madan Mohan, Advocate. For Respondent-State: Mr. Anisul Haque, A.C. to A.A.G.IX ------------------- 3. 05.09.2011 Heard Mr. Yugal Kishore, learned Sr. counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Ganpati Trivedi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bihar State Religious Trust Board and its functionaries The writ petition was filed challenging the order of respondent no.3, the then Administrator of the respondent Board bearing Memo No. 8 dated 1.4.2010 2 whereby the respondent No.3, after dissolving the committee constituted by the Board for managing the affairs of the temple in question, had appointed respondent no. 4, as a Sewait (temporary trustee) in purported exercise of the power vested under Section 33 of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). The petitioner has also raised an issue that in absence of any declaration of the trust in question being a public trust, in terms of the provisions of the Act, the Board has no jurisdiction to interfere with the affairs of the trust in question. As the Board in exercise of powers vested under Section 33 of the Act can appoint a temporary trustee for a maximum period of one year, hence by operation of law the term of the respondent no.4 as a temporary trustee of the Math in question expired on or before 1.4.2011 and in the aforesaid circumstances, the relief prayed by the petitioner stands answered and no order is required to be passed. The petitioner by filing a supplementary affidavit and an interlocutory application bearing I.A. No. 5415 of 2011 has brought on record a letter dated 25.7.2011, issued by the Chairman of the Respondent Board to the Circle Officer, Dawath, Rohtas requesting him to continue until alternative arrangement is made, so that the work of management of the trust property does not suffer. By the same letter, the Circle 3 Officer has also been requested to provide names of 11 persons for constitution of the Committee. Following the aforesaid letter dated 25.7.2011, a notice has been issued by the Circle Officer, Dawat on 1.8.2011, inviting offers from persons for settlement of the land of the trust, for agricultural purposes. The said public notice has been placed at Annexure-9 to the petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the term of the temporary trustee having expired on 1.4.2011 itself, in terms of Section 33 of the Act, the issuance of the letter by the Chairman of the respondent Board requesting the Circle Officer to continue with the duties until settlement of the scheme and appointment of a committee and the subsequent notice issued by the Circle Officer, Dawat are unsustainable. Mr. Ganpati Trivedi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Board, responding to the aforesaid argument, submitted that the Board may appoint any person or officer of the State Government for the management of the affairs of the trust until the settlement of the scheme and appointment of the Committee. Learned counsel contends that there cannot be objection to an appointment of a responsible officer of the State Government to look after the property of the trust pending finalization of the schemes. Undoubtedly, the provision of Section 33 of the 4 Act provides for appointment of a temporary trustee for a period not exceeding one year and within which period the Board is required to settle the scheme. The legislative intent is that a temporary arrangement may not continue endlessly. The object behind the provision is to provide a solution to a trusteeship dispute and until a scheme is settled under Section 32 of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner disputing the contentions submits that there is no dispute regarding a bona fide trustee and a bogey is being raised by the respondent Board to deny the trusteeship to the petitioner and/or his brothers. It is contented that as any settlement of a scheme had to be made within a period of one year as prescribed under Section 33 of the Act and which period has lapsed without settlement of any scheme, the Board should have taken necessary steps for appointment of the trustee from amongst the petitioner and his brothers considering the deed of trust whereunder admittedly, the father of the petitioner Late Yamunadhar Mishra was appointed as a Mutwalli and the petitioner and his brothers are his descendants. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and the legal position, that an appointment of a temporary trustee is only in circumstances where there is a bona fide dispute as to the right of any person to act as 5 trustee and where in the opinion of the Board there is likelihood of a breach of peace or serious interference with the management of the property of such trust, this court is of the opinion that the respondent Board should consider the offer of the petitioner for appointment as a trustee until such time that a scheme is finally settled under Section 32 of the Act. Accordingly, let an appropriate application be filed by the petitioner and his brothers offering the name of the trustee and which shall be considered and disposed of by the respondent Chairman in the backdrop of statutory provisions as provided under Section 33(1) and (2) of the Act, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of. Ravi/- (Jyoti Saran, J.)