IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1509 of 2010 1. RAM GOPAL DAS CHELA OF LATE MAHANTH BHAGWAN DAS R/O SHEKHPURA, BAILEY ROAD, P.S SHASTRINAGAR, DISTT- PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE LAW SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. BIHAR STATE BOARD OF RELIGIOUS TRUSTS THROUGH THE ADMINISTRATOR-CUM-SPECIAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER, VIDYAPATI MARG, PATNA ----------- 02. 25.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, for the Bihar State Religious Trust Board (hereinafter called the Board) and for the Intervenor. The intervenor is the beneficiary of the impugned order dated 14.9.2009 and has appeared suo motu. The very fair stand taken by Mr. Trivedi, appearing on behalf of the Board saves this Court from noticing the facts of the case exhaustively except to the extent necessary for purposes of the present order. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Nath, submitted that whether the trust is a private trust or a public trust is a jurisdictional fact. If it is a private trust, the Board had no jurisdiction over it. If it is a public trust, the Board is free to act in accordance with law. The impugned order dated 14.9.2009 prejudges this jurisdictional fact when according to the Board in its own counter affidavit proceeding for determination of the nature of the trust are yet to reach finality under Section 28 (2) (u) 2 of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act. The Board has wrongly registered it as a public trust and appointed the intervenor as the Mahanth. Sri Trivedi, appearing for the Board clarifies that the registration at this stage has been done only for the purpose for holding the statutory enquiry for determination of the nature of the trust and the Board does not propose to prejudge anything. Mr. Trivedi, finds it difficult to persuade the Court not to interfere with the impugned order dated 14.9.2009 deciding the trust in question a public trust appointing the intervenor as the Mahanth in view of the admission in the counter affidavit of the Board that the jurisdictional fact with regard to the nature of the trust is yet to be determined under Section 28 (2) (u) of the Act. The impugned order dated 14.9.2009 is accordingly set aside. No observations are required with regard to the registration made by the Board at this stage in view of the stand of the Board itself It is submitted on behalf of the Board that notices have already been issued to the petitioner in the proceeding under Section 28 (2) (u) of the Act. This Court therefore directs the proceedings on the jurisdictional fact to be concluded within a maximum period of two months from today since the order has been passed in presence of 3 the counsel for the parties. Needless to state that all further actions of the Board shall then have to abide by such determination that may be done. The writ application stands disposed in the aforesaid manner. P.K ( Navin Sinha, J.)