IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4959 of 2009 ASHOK KUMAR SINGH S/O LATE RAMTA PRASAD SINGH R/O VILLAGE- MOJARI, PS- SHIV SAGAR, DISTT- ROHTAS, THE MANAGER OF SHRI THAKUR JEE & MAHABIR JEE MANDIR, MOJARI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECY. LAW DEPARTMENT,BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE ADMINISTRATOR-CUM-SPECIAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER, BIHAR STATE BOARD OF RELIGIOUS TRUST,BIHAR, PATNA ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr. V. Nath with Mr.B.K.Singh Advocates For the State: Mr. A.A.G-10 For the Intervenor: Mr.A.P.Jittu, Advocate For the Board: Mr. A.N.Choubey, Advocate ----------- 4 24.7.2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Irony of the present litigation cannot be lost sight of as the stated position which has emerged during the course of hearing is that the issue of declaration of the property of which the petitioner claims himself to be a rightful claimant and as a private trust, is the subject matter of adjudication before the administrator Bihar Religious Trust Board. This adjudication is being held under the purported exercise of power conferred under the amended provision brought into effect in the year, 2007 and the concerned section is Section 28(2)(u) of Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act. When the writ application was filed the subject matter of challenge was the order dated 4.3.2009 contained in annexure-5 by virtue of which the administrator had declared the trust to be a ‘public trust’. Submission of learned counsel representing the petitioner is that when the final adjudication is yet to be made and hearing is going on the subject then how can a declaration in - 2 - anticipation of the decision be made that it is a public trust. Even otherwise since the order has been passed by the administrator declaring it to be public trust vide order dated 4.3.2009 then there would be every possibility that the same may weigh on the final decision, which may be taken in this regard. The Court after perusing the records and hearing the parties is in agreement with learned counsel for the petitioner to the extent that if the final adjudication with regard to status of the property is yet to be made then it is needless to say that the order dated 4.3.2009 passed by the administrator cannot be allowed to be sustained. To that extent the petitioner has succeeded in making out the case for interference. The order dated 4.3.2009 contained in annexure-5 therefore stands quashed. It is left open to the parties to the dispute that they shall establish their claims before the administrator under the so called exercise of power under section 28(2) (u) of the Act. Future course of action will be dependent upon the adjudication made in this regard. This writ application is allowed with the above direction. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)