IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1181 of 2005 MAHANTH DUKHHARAN DAS, Chela of late Mahanth Awadh Das, Kabir Math, Village and P.O. Barahi, District Samastipur …..petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, through the President, Bihar State Board of RegliousTrtusts, Vidyapati Marg, Patna-800001. 2. Bihar State Board of Religious Trusts, through its President, Vidyapati Marg, Patna-1. 3. The President, Bihar State Board of Religious Trusts, Vidyapati Marg, patna-1. 4.Deep narayan Mandal, son of Brij nandan Mandal alleged self styled as Deep Narayan Das, Chela of Thakur Das, Kabir Math Acharya Asthan, laxmipur Bagicha, P.S.Rosera, District Samastipur. …Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner : Dr. Amrendra Kumar, Advocate. Mr.A.K. Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent No. 2 & 3: Mr. Shekhar Singh, Advocate. For respondent no.4 : Mr. B.N. Mishra, Advocate. ------- 2 09.05.2011 Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raising a grievance against an order contained in Memo no. 1613 dated 17.8.2004 (Annexure-7) issued under the signature of respondent no.3, whereby it was communicated to the petitioner that in exercise of Powers under section 28(2) (h) (iii) of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950 (in short ‘Act’) a resolution in the meeting of respondent Board dated 18.6.2004 has been taken to remove the petitioner from the post of trustee of Sadguru Kabir Math, Barahi in the district of Samastipur and further in exercise of power in terms of Section 33 of the Act, respondent no.4 has been appointed as temporary trustee for the Math in question. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits , though, notice was issued to the petitioner, but on plain perusal of the impugned order it is apparent that reasonable opportunity of hearing was not given to him and, therefore, the impugned order is contrary to the mandate and object of Section 28 (3) of the Act. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.2 and 3 2 submits that as a matter of fact the term of temporary trustee is only for one year and, therefore, to that extent, the present writ petition has become infructuous. He further submits that so far removal of the petitioner from the post of trustee is concerned, the petitioner could have challenge the impugned order before the learned District Judge in terms of Section 28(3) of the Act. 5. After having heard the parties and on examination of materials available on record, this Court finds that before passing the impugned order dated 17.8.2004 (Annexure 7) reasonable opportunity of hearing was not given to the petitioner and therefore, matter requires reconsideration. This Court further finds that if respondent no.4 was appointed as temporary trustee under section 33 of the Act, then his tenure has already expired and fresh appointment is required to be made by the respondent Board. 6. For the reasons recorded above, the impugned order/communication dated 17.8.2004 (Annexure 7) is hereby set aside and matter is remitted to the respondent Bihar State Board of Religious Trusts for reexamining the matter and for passing a fresh order, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 7. Petitioner is hereby directed to appear before respondent no.3 within a period of four weeks from today with a detailed representation accompanied by certified copy of the present order. If such a representation is filed by the petitioner within the time prescribed, then respondent no.2 shall be obliged to consider the case of the petitioner afresh and shall pass a fresh order in accordance with law regarding the trust in question. Entire exercise must be completed by the Board within a period of three months from the date of filing of such representation by the petitioner. 8. Till the matter is finally disposed of, status quo as is obtaining today, with respect to trust in question shall be maintained. 9 .However, it is made clear that if the petitioner does not appear before the respondent no.3 within the time prescribed by this Court with a representation accompanied by a certified copy of the present order, then it 3 shall be construed that the writ petition filed on behalf of the petitioner has finally been rejected. 10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, writ petition stands allowed. No costs. . Rahman/ ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)