IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7536 of 2002 1. Baba Bada Das Thakurbari, Keshopur, P.S.-Jamalpur, District-Munger, through its Mahanth, Mahanth Narsingh Das. 2. Mahanth Narsingh Das, Chella of Mahantha Narayan Das, Baba Bada Das Thakurbari, Keshopur, P.S.-Jamalpur, District-Munger. ................. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Board, through its President, Vidyapati Marg, Patna. 3. The President, Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Board, Vidyapati Margh, Patna. 4. Collector, Munger, District Munger. 5. Superintendent of Police, Munger, District-Munger. 6. Circle Officer, Tantia Bamber Anchal, District- Munger. 7. Pramod Kumar Yadav, son of Sri Shyam Sundar Yadav, resident of Village and P.O.- Bichhi Chanchar, P.S.- Sangrampur, District-Munger. 8. Sudhir Yadav (wrongly described as Mahanth Sudhir Das), son of Shri Sahdeo Prasad, resident of Bichhi Chanchar, P.S.-Sangrampur, District-Munger. 9. Dr. Shambhu Nath Jha, son of Late Saryug Prasad Jha, resident of Village and P.O.-Kharagpur, P.S.- Sangrampur, District-Munger. 10. Dinesh Paswan, son of Shri Pradeep Paswan, resident of Village and P.O.-Bichhi Chanchar, P.S.-Sangrampur, District-Munger. 11. Somar Ram, son of Police Ram, resident of village and P.O.-Bichhi Chanchar, P.S.-Sangrampur, District- Munger. 12. Mithilesh Kumar Singh, son of Late Sitaram Singh, resident of village Ghoshpur, P.O.- Kharagpur, P.S.- Sangrampur, District-Munger. ................... Respondents ----------- 6. 28.4.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Bihar State Board of Religious Trust, hereinafter referred to as the Board. The petitioner in this writ application has assailed a notification 2 dated 24.12.2001 of the Board purportedly under section 32 of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act, 1950 hereinafter referred to as the Act, appointing a Trust Committee while framing a scheme for its management through a Trust Committee named therein. The petitioner has also assailed an order dated 14.6.2002 (Annexure 2) which has only the effect of reviving the notification contained in Annexure 1 which was stayed by the Board itself for some time. Though Mr. Shashi Shekhar Dwiwedi, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner in the initial argument has taken a plea that there is nothing like Ram Janki Thakurbari in village Bichchi Chanchar and that the registered trust in the Board is Baba Badal Das Thakurbari, it was ultimately agreed by him in view of recording of facts mentioned in his representation, contained in Annexure 6, itself as also in the order of the President of the Board dated 1.2.2002 acting on the representation of the petitioner dated 28.12.2001 and the subsequent order dated 11.3.2002 that Ram Janki Thakurbari at Bichchi Chanchar is only 3 part and branch of the main trust, named as Baba Badal Das Thakurwari. Mr. Dwiwedi, however was still quite emphatic in his submissions that if for any reason whatsoever the Board thought it proper to frame a scheme and get the Thakurbari in question managed through a new Committee it was incumbent on the authorities of the Board to at least give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners before passing of the impugned notification as contained in Annexure 1 framing scheme for such management of the Thakurbari. Mr. Dwiwedi further explains that as the order of the Board framing the scheme is both in violation of principles of natural justice as also the impugned order having an effect of removal of the petitioner from the post of trustee has been passed only by the President of the Board, the same is also without jurisdiction. He would, therefore, submit that the alternative remedy under section 32(3) of the Act would not stand as a bar as was held by this Court in the case of Pitamber Thakur & ors. vs. Bihar State Board of Religious 4 Trust, reported in 1995(2) PLJR 242. Mr. Ambuj Nayan Choubey, learned Counsel for the Board on the other hand, would submit that the whole question now has become academic because the Scheme was framed in the light of the complaint received way back in the year 2001 and such Scheme could not become functional initially on account of stay order passed by the President himself and later on by virtue of an interim order passed in this case on 14.11.2002. He would accordingly submit that as the petitioner has remained in office for all this period and has enjoyed the trust property, if need be Board will take any action under section 32 only after affording opportunity to the petitioner. In the considered opinion of this Court the exercise of power under section 32 by the President of the Board in Annexure 1 which had an automatic consequence of removal of the petitioner from the post of trustee cannot be upheld because if a trustee has remained in-charge of the management of the trust property including Thakurbari and his being displaced by the 5 appointment of a new trust Committee even for the purposes of the Scheme framed under section 32 would require a notice and/or opportunity of hearing. Section 32 of the Act, therefore, wherever it will have the adverse consequence of removal of previous trustee in course of framing scheme for management of the trust by a new trust Committee, the old trustee will have to be at least given a notice and this is how section 28(2)(h) and section 32 can reconcile. In view of admitted fact that no such notice was given to the petitioner and the notification dated 24.12.2001 was passed without any notice and/or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, this Court keeping into account that the Scheme has not been implemented for all these eight years would find that no effective purpose would be served by giving lease of life to Annexure 1 even after authorizing the Board to hear the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the notification, contained in Annexure 1, is hereby quashed. This Court would take no cognizance of the noting in the file, as 6 contained in Annexure 2, as they always remain tentative unless an order based on such noting in the file is communicated to the person concerned. That is how the law has been laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Bachhittar Singh vs. State of Punjab & anor., reported in AIR 1963 S.C. 395. Having quashed the notification this Court would leave the matter for the Board to decide as to whether there does exist any mismanagement in the affairs of Baba Badal Das Thakurbari including its branch Ram Janki Thakurbari for which the impugned notification under section 32 was issued and if the Board or its Administrator is satisfied that there is a need for framing of such scheme, it will first issue notice and/or afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing necessary orders in this regard. With the aforementioned observation, this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/