IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12433 of 2001 AKASHI DARIYA PANTHI MATH Versus BIHAR STATE BOARD OF RELIGIOUS TRUST ----------- 5. 30.3.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for Bihar State Board of Religious Trust. In this writ application the petitioner has assailed the validity and correctness of an order dated 19.10.2000, whereby and whereunder it has been held that the petitioner was not acting in the interest of the trust and was misutilizing its income and at the same time he was not complying the orders/ directions of the Board. The impugned order also refers to certain earlier communication of the Board directing the petitioner to file a show cause as to why he should not be removed from the post of trustee and in fact makes a clear statement that if the petitioner did not respond to the aforementioned notices, he had to be removed in terms of the power of the Board under section 28(2)(h)(iii) of the Act. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Board had no jurisdiction to 2 pass an order, inasmuch as the trust in question is not a religious trust as defined under section 2(l) of the Act. He would next contend that the alleged notices referred to in the impugned order were never served on the petitioner and as such, the order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. He would finally submit that the petitioner has filed an exhaustive representation assailing the impugned decision of the Board but the same was not even considered, compelling the petitioner to move this Court. The counsel for the Board with reference to the counter affidavit would submit that the writ application is not maintainable because there is remedy of appeal either in terms of section 29 sub- section (3) of the Act or under section 32 of the Act. He would also submit that the finding of the Board with regard to misuse or mismanagement of the property of the trust cannot be questioned by the petitioner by taking a plea that the trust is not covered by the expression of Religious Trust because if that be the stand of the 3 Surendra/ petitioner then he has to get the declaratory suit filed for adjudication of his claim and right that the trust property was never part of any Hindu Religious Trust. In the opinion of this Court, moment the petitioner has challenged the order, as contained in Annexure 1, he has proceeded that the Board had no authority to constitute a Trust Committee. If that was the stand the petitioner he had a remedy of appeal wherein all these questions could have been gone into by the District Judge, who is the appellate authority under the Act. The plea of the petitioner that the Trust in question does not fulfil the test and requirement of section 2(l) of the Act, the religious trust is essentially a question of fact requiring evidence to be led by the parties and in that event the petitioner had to approach the civil court for getting a declaration that the Trust is beyond the control and jurisdiction of the Bihar State Board of Religious Trust. The writ application, therefore, in neither case will be maintainable and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) 4