IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12070 of 2009 DR.GAURI SHANKAR LAL, S/o late Mitto Lal Rai, Boring Road Chouraha, Patna – 800 001 …. Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH COLLECTOR, PATNA 2. Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Board, Vidyapati Marg, P.S. Kotwali, Town and District Patna through its Administrator cum Special Executive Officer …. Respondents ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. B.K.Shukla, Advocate For respondent No.2: Mr. Ambuj Nayan Choubey, Advocate 3 14.12.2009 Heard the parties. The petitioner challenges the action of the Bihar State Board of Religious Trusts, whereby notices have been issued to him as to why the temple of the petitioner be not held to be a public religious trust. Petitioner states that he had made an attempt to file a show cause in the matter which was not accepted, which had to be sent by registered post. Petitioner complains that all efforts are being made to decide the matter in a surreptitious manner inasmuch as after the interlocutory application was filed, hurriedly a date Sunday was fixed for a date of hearing and the notices were served at the last moment. It is further alleged that the Administrator has himself become a party to the dispute by his various notices. In my view whether an endowment is a public endowment or a private endowment is a question of fact which has to be decided on materials that are brought on record. There cannot be any hurry or slip shod proceeding for determining for such an important question which becomes a final finding of fact till upsets by - 2 - a Civil Court. The consequences of finding are grave. They have to be decided judicially and after giving proper and adequate opportunity of hearing and leading evidences in the matter. There is no urgency in the matter where principle of natural justice can be avoided. Another important aspect is as to how the official business can at all be carried out on Sunday, a date have been fixed. In my view these actions of the respondents clearly give an impression and give an opportunity to the petitioner to raise criticism regarding fairness of the stand. Be that as it may, in view of the principle as noticed above it is only expected that the authorities would give a clear notice of the date of hearing and give full opportunity to the petitioner to lead all evidences as the petitioner may deem fit and proper and only after such adequate opportunity is granted, let decision be taken by Board in accordance with law. Petitioner would be at liberty to file such other supplementary statement and bring such evidence on record as he may be advised within two weeks from today. Thereafter the Administrator would fix a date and communicate the same to the petitioner which communication should be served on the petitioner at least one week before the date fixed in the matter. Thereafter the Administrator would decide the matter in accordance with law. With these observations the application is disposed of. Spd/- (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)