IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12403 of 2002 1. RAM LAKHAN SHARAN, CHELA OF LATE SARJUG SHARAN, RESIDENT OF MOH.BHABDEOPUR, WARD NO. 14, P.S. AND DISTRICT-SITAMARHI. 2. SRI THAKUR RAM JANKI JEE (DEITY) INSTALLED IN THE TEMPLE SITUATED AT MOH. BHABDEOPUR, WARD NO. 14, P.S. & DISTRICT-SITAMARHI THROUGH PETITIONER NO. 1 ……………………………………………… PETITIONER Versus 1. BIHAR STATE RELIGIOUS TRUST BOARD, VIDYAPATI MARG, PATNA THROUGH ITS ADYAKSH. 2. ACTING ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT, BIHAR STATE RELIGIOUS TRUST BOARD, VIDYAPATI MARG, PATNA. 3. ANCHAL ADHIKARI, RIGHA, DISTT.-SITAMARHI. ………………………………………….. RESPONDENTS ----------- 5 5.5.2009 Heard Mr. Yogendra Mishra, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Shekhar Singh, counsel for the Bihar State Trust Board, hereinafter referred to as the Board. In this writ application the prayer of the petitioners reads as follows:- (i) A writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the letter dt. 28.8.02 (Annexure-3) issued by the respondents 1 and 2, be issued. (ii) An appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to forebear from interfering in any way with the petitioners’ right and possession with respect to the mandir in question, be issued.” Mr. Mishra with reference to the 2 aforementioned impugned order dated 28.8.2002 (Annexure-3) would submit that the one sided decision taken by the officiating office superintendent of the Board directing the Sub- divisional Officer, Sitamarhi to take over the charge of the properties of the trust, namely, Jh jkenqykjh “kj.k ds vf/kuq’B; U;kl fl)ckck dh dqfV;k fjax cka/k] lhrke<+h, is wholly unauthorized and without jurisdiction. He would, therefore, submit that the Board has in fact gone beyond its statutory power, inasmuch as, the said trust was never a public trust so as to allow interference by any person including the temporary trustee. This Court, having perused the detailed counter affidavit filed by the Board, is however satisfied that the main order on the basis of which Annexure-3 has been issued is one dated 14.1.1997 as contained in Annexure-Q passed by the Board which actually paved the way for removal of the former trustee by the Board in exercise of its power under Section 28(2)(H)(iii) of Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act 1950, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and appointment of Anchal Adhikari, Righa as 3 temporary trustee in terms of Section 33 of the Act. It is infact only in continuation to the said order dated 14.1.1997 that a consequential order i.e. the impugned order in form of Annexure-3 by way of reminder and follow up action was issued by the Officers of the Board. Mr. Shekhar Singh, learned counsel for the Board would however fairly concede that an order of temporary trustee cannot remain for ever and therefore, by virtue of the order dated 14.1.1997, the Anchal Adhikari cannot be said to be have immortalized himself on the post of the temporary trustee. Though this Court had passed no interim order in this case filed on 1.11.2002 staying the operation of impugned order dated 28.8.2002 but the counsel for the petitioners has claimed that the petitioners are still in possession of the trust property. The Respondents however on the other hand in the counter affidavit have made a claim that Anchal Adhikari, Righa is in possession of the properties of the Trust in capacity of temporary trustee appointed by the Board but 4 then this Court is not in a position or even required to decide all these disputed questions of fact because if today a temporary trustee in terms of the order dated 14.1.1997 is still continuing, that by itself is not permissible because such temporary trustee under the Act, cannot continue for more than one year. That being so, this Court would remit the matter back to the present Administrator of the Board who would examine the whole issue afresh and pass a fresh order after giving notice and/or opportunity of hearing to the petitioners either with regard to the appointment of temporary trustee under Section 33 of the Act and/or framing a scheme under Section 32 of the Act within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order. In the event, the Administrator of the Board would be inclined to exercise such power under Section 32 or 33 of the Act, it would be always open for the petitioners to raise all the issues before him including the one that the said trust is not a public trust and if such a question is raised, 5 the same will also be decided by the Administrator in terms of Section 28(2)(U) of the Act. With the aforementioned observations and directions this application is finally disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)