IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12336 of 2008 MAHANTH NARAYAN DAS UDASIN CHELA OF LATE MAHANTH OM PRAKASH DAS UDASIN OF UDASIN AASHRAM MAHABIR ASTHAN, VILLAGE & P.O. MARHAURA, DISTRICT SARAN … PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Bihar State Board of Religious Trust through its Administrator cum Special Officer, Vidyapati Marg, Patna 3. The Administrator cum Special Officer, Bihar State Board of Religious Trusts, Vidyapati Marg, Patna- 800001 4. Sri Kishore Kunal, son of not known to petitioner at present Administrator Bihar State Board of Religious Trusts, Vidyapati Marg, Patna- 800001 5. Assistant Superintendent, Bihar State Board of Religious Trust Vidyapati Marg, Patna-1 6. The Secretary, Department of Law (Justice), Government of Bihar, Patna, Old Secretariat, Patna … Respondents. ----------- 7. 5.3.2010 By this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, though various provisions of Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) have been called in question, Mr. Krishna Nandan Singh, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, in course of hearing very fairly stated he may be permitted to abandon the prayer and challenge the removal from the post of Mahanth under section 28 of the Act. At this juncture Mr. P.K.Verma, learned counsel for the State, submitted if the petitioner abandons the challenge to the constitutional validity he 2 can approach the District Judge under section 28(3) of the Act. Be it noted, the petitioner was removed from the Mahanthship by the order dated 4.9.2009. Prior to that he had filed the writ petition. Section 28(3) of the Act reads as follows: “ Before passing any order under clause (h) of sub-section (2) the Board shall issue a notice to the trustee communicating to him the ground of his proposed removal and provide him a reasonable time for the reply. Before making an order the Board shall consider the delay, if submitted with the required time and in case of the removal under section 28(2)(h)(vii), shall obtain the opinion of a Dharmacharya who is well- versed with the tenets of that particular sect. After the order of the removal is received by the trustee, he may, within ninety days of the communication of such order, apply to the District Judge for varying, modifying or setting aside the order.” Mr. Singh has an apprehension that the District Judge may not entertain the application as 90 days have expired. At this juncture Mr. Verma submitted that if such an application is filed alongwith an 3 application under section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act that the petitioner has been diligently and genuinely prosecuting his grievance before the writ Court, the application may be heard on merits. In view of the aforesaid, it is directed if an application is filed within a period of two weeks before the District Judge, Chapra, the learned District Judge would be well advised to dispose of the same on merits within the parameters of the Act within a period of six months. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of without any order as to costs. (Dipak Misra,C.J.) (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/