IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10017 of 2004 Dr.Harihar Das (Trustee) Chela of late Mahanth Mukh Lal Das, resident of village-Hasanpur Dariya Panthi Math, P.O.-Nahub, P.S.-Rajgir, District- Nalanda ……. ……. Petitioner Versus 1.The State Of Bihar 2.Bihar State Board of Religious Trusts, Vidyapati Marg, Patna 3.The Chiarman, Bihar State Board of Religious Trusts, Vidyapati Marg, Patna 4.Mahanth Laxman Das @ Surdas, resident of village- Hasanpur Dariya Panth Math, P.O.-Nahub, P.S.- Rajgir,District- Nalanda actually residing at village- Mahanandpur, District- Nalanda ……. ……. Respondents ---------- For the petitioner: 1.Mr. D.K.Sinha, Sr. Advocate 2.Mr.Sudhir Kumar For respondent no.2 (Board): 1.Mr.Shekhar Singh For respondent no.4: 1. Mr. Y.V.Giri, Sr. Advocate 2.Mr Rajiv Giri 3.Nikhil Agrawal ---------- 8. 29.6.2011. The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash memo no. 1497 dated 07.8.2004 as contained in Annexure-12 to the writ petition by which respondent no. 4 has been appointed as temporary trustee of Hasanpur Dariya Panthi Math in place of the petitioner. Further prayer of the petitioner is not to disturb him in day-to-day function of the Math in question. The impugned order as contained in Annexure-12 to the writ petition was passed on 07.08.2004 under the signature of Chairman of Bihar State Board of Religious Trusts in exercise of powers conferred upon him under Section 33 of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the „Act‟ for the sake of brevity). It is apparent from perusal of the impugned order that an 2 enquiry was conducted pursuant to the complaint received against the petitioner and a show cause was asked from the petitioner. Section 28 of the Act prescribes general powers and duties of the Board. Under Section 28(2) (h) (iii) of the Act, the Board has been given power to remove trustee from his office, if such trustee refused to act or willfully disobeyed the directions or orders of the Board under the Act. A counter-affidavit in this case has been filed on behalf of the respondent no. 2 in which it has been stated that pursuant to appointment of the petitioner to the post of temporary trustee on 22.07.1999 his action/inaction compelled for issuance of letters dated 19.06.2002 and 28.05.2004 whereby and where under he was asked to submit budget, income and expenditure. It has further been submitted on behalf of respondent no. 2 that an enquiry was conducted for alleged act of omission and commission on the part of the petitioner and enquiry report was submitted on 28.02.2003 pursuant to which a show cause was given to the petitioner on 28.05.2004 by which he was asked to submit his explanation on or before 18.06.2004 as to why he be not removed from the post of temporary trustee of the Math in question. Learned counsel for the respondent-Board further submits that Board has considered the cause shown by the petitioner and the Board in its meeting dated 28.06.2004 found the explanation submitted on behalf of the petitioner to be not satisfactory and thus decided to remove him and appoint respondent no. 4 in his place on the post of temporary trustee. It is submitted on his behalf that pursuant to the decision 3 taken by the Board the order dated 07.08.2004 was issued which order has been challenged by the writ petitioner before this Court. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 4 submits that several F.I.Rs. have been instituted against the petitioner for serious offences like murder and attempt to murder which fact is being controverted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent-Board has also drawn my attention towards Section 33 of the Act which has come into effect in the year 2007 whereby and where under the tenure of a temporary trustee has been fixed to be “not exceeding one year” and thus he submits that in view of amended Act prayer made on behalf of the petitioner has also become infructuous. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that in view of the Amended Act even respondent no.4 cannot be allowed to continue as a temporary trustee as he has been appointed by the impugned order dated 7.8.2004 and in view of the Amended Act his tenure as a temporary trustee would also come to an end after one year. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly concedes, in course of argument, that he does not have any vested right to continue on the post as a temporary trustee. In view of section 33 of the Amended Act also the petitioner cannot sustain his claim to continue as temporary trustee of the Muth in question. Taking into consideration the facts of the case and submissions made on behalf of the parties, I am of the view that the 4 petitioner has not been able to point out any illegality in the impugned dated 7.8.2004 as contained in annexure-12 to the writ petition which has been passed in exercise of the powers vested in the Board after issuing proper notice to the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. The respondent-Board would ensure that amended provision of section 33 of the Act is not applied on pick and choose basis and is enforced uniformally and effectively. Md.S. ( Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.)