IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11694 of 2002 SRI SRI SOMESHWAR NATH MAHADEO TEMPLE THROUGH IT‟S SHEBAIT MAHENDRA PRASAD PANDEY SON OF LATE SHAILENDRA PRASAD PANDEY, SITUATED AT SHAMBHUGANJ AT KARSOP, P.S. SHAMBHUGANJ, DISTRICT BANKA …….. PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE BIHAR STATE RELIGIOUS TRUST BOARD THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN/PRESIDENT, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BANKA 4. CIRCLE OFFICER, SHAMBHUGANJ, DIST. BANKA 5. RAJENDRA PRASAD, THE PRESENT CIRCLE OFFICER, SHAMBHUGANJ, DISTT. BANKA 6. KAMLESHWARI YADAV, SON OF BIPAT MAHATO ALIAS BIPAT YADAV, RESIDENT OF KARSOP, P.O. AND P.S. SHAMBHUGANJ, DISTRICT BANKA …… RESPONDENTS. ----------- 5. 5.5.2009 Heard Counsel for the petitioner, Counsel for the Bihar State Religious Trust Board (hereinafter referred to as the „Board‟) and Counsel for the State. In this writ application, the petitioner has made a prayer to the following effect: “This is application for annulling the order dated 15.1.2000 (Annexure-5) passed by the Chairman, Bihar State Religious Trust Board whereby he constituted a purported Committee for management and control of Shree Someshwar Nath Mahadeo and its attached property and to declare that any action taken by the purported Committee is a nullity and not binding on the petitioner.” Counsel for petitioner with reference to the aforementioned prayer has drawn attention of this Court to the impugned order contained in Annexure-5 which on the very look would appear to be at best a note sheet placed by the Assistant to the Superintendent of Board with certain 2 recommendation to the President of Board. The relevant portion of Annexure-5 reads as follows: dk0-v0 vapykf/kdkjh] “kEHkqxat ftyk ckadk }kjk izsf’kr izfrosnu ds lkFk U;kl lfefr xfBr djus gsrq lnL;ksa dh lwph Øekad&8] 9 ij ns[kk tk;A tkap izfrosnu Øekad&8 ij ns[kus ls Kkr gksrk gS fd U;kl ds U;kl/kkjh vkSj iqtkjh feydj U;kl ds 28ch- tehu dks csp Mkys vkSj izfr o’kZ iks[kjk ds fuykeh ls izkIr vk; tks 6]000@¾7]000@& ds yxHkx gksrh gS mldks vius ifjokj ds Hkj.k iks”k.k esa [kpZ djrs gS blds vykos gkV vkSj tehankjh ls Hkh vk; tks cckZn gks jgk gSaA bUgksaus ¼v-v-½ i’kZn~ ls vuq”kalk fd;s gS fd bl U;kl dh lqO;oLFkk gsrq U;kl lfefr dk xBu dj fn;k tk; bUgksaus lnL;ksa dh lwph Øekad&9 ij nh gSA vr% buds lq>kokuqlkj U;kl lfefr dk xBu dj fn;k tk;A vkns”kkFkZA g0@& lgk;d 30-12-99 v0 mijksDr fVIi.khA va”k ^^d** ls lger gqvk tk ldrk gSA g0@&dk;Z0v/kh{kd] 3-1-2000 G0@&jke d`iky ;kno] v/;{k] 15-1-2000 fcgkj jkT; /kkfeZd U;kl i’kZn~] iVukA Thus from the aforementioned contents of Annexure-5, it would appear that it is nothing else but a note sheet in the file and such note sheet for that purpose cannot be described to be an order communicated to any person including the petitioner which could have been assailed in a writ petition. As a matter of fact the petitioner has also filed an interlocutory application no.5538 of 2002 which however was not pressed by him for last seven years wherein having annexed a copy of the notification dated 30.12.2000 by way of 3 Annexure-7, a prayer has been made for addition of party named in paragraph no.5 thereof, namely, Bhanu Singh, Arun Mehta, Badri Das, Dinesh Yadav, Subodh Kumar, Vakil Prasad and Ravindra Pandey, who were notified to be the members of the Trust Committee in the notification dated 30.12.2000. It has to be noted that there is no not even a prayer in this writ application for quashing Annexure-7. The respondent-Board, however, by filing a counter affidavit has clarified that the aforementioned notification dated 30.12.2000 as contained in Annexure-7 has already been withdrawn by the Board by an order dated 8.10.2003. Obviously, upon withdrawal of the said notification dated 30.12.2000, there was nothing left for the petitioner to press in this writ application but then as he was happily enjoying the interim order passed by this court on 17.1.2003, he did not allow this court to dispose of the matter as would appear from the subsequent order dated 2.8.2007 by raising a plea that the Board must produce Certificate no.708 dated 3.6.1958. In the opinion of this Court, there would be no such certificate no.708 dated 3.6.1958 because Section 34 of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act (hereinafter referred to as the „Act‟) only talks of maintaining certain register. It is only by amendment of Section 34 by Act 1 of 2007 that the records of registration of Religious Trust with the Board as to be 4 maintained by the Board. Earlier prior to the aforesaid amendment, the Board was to maintain only a register of all religious trust in the State and any Hindu, on payment of fee, could inspect the register. Obviously, such impression was created by the petitioner only with a view to keep the matter pending before this Court, though in effect the purpose of this writ application came to an end the day on which the Board had informed this Court by filing counter affidavit that the notification dated 30.12.2000 had already been withdrawn. Mr. Shivajee Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner would then contend that Annexure-5 even after the withdrawal of the Annexure-7, the notification would survive. The question however would that if Annexure-5 is only a noting in the file can the same be assailed in a writ petition? Annexure-5 in fact led to a formal order contained in Annexure-7 and when the same has been withdrawn, nothing survives by way of Annexure-5 which can be quashed by this Court. In the opinion of this court, the writ application itself was not maintainable because it was filed only against Annexure-5 which was as noted above is a noting of the file. Such noting of the file is no value in the eye of law. Reference in this connection may be made to the case of Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab and another reported in AIR 1963 Supreme Court 395. 5 That being so, this court must hold that the writ application has already outlived its purpose. At this stage Mr. Pandey would submit that the Board has no power to interfere with the affairs of the trust in question as it is not a public trust. This Court would not like to go into such academic question well beyond the scope of this writ petition. Moreover if the question of nature trust would arise in future, the remedy for the concerned person including the petitioner will be before the Board which under Section 28(2)(U) has been vested power to decide such a question. The issue as to whether Mr. Shyam Narain Pandey, the ex-President of the Board had the power to decide the issue of the nature of trust or his order holding that the petitioner is a private trust stands rebutted not only in view of the documents brought on record in supplementary counter affidavit by the Board denying Mr. Pandey to have ever passed such an order, but also on the competence of Mr. Pandey to do so because such power was never vested in the President of the Board till the amendment in the Act was made in the year 2007. That being so, the aforementioned document also is of no avail and on that basis, the petitioner can not get a relief which was never prayed by him in this writ application. That being so, this application is wholly misconceived as it has become infructuous on account of withdrawal of the notification dated 30.12.2000 as contained in Annexure-7. Consequently the interim order dated 17.1.2003 6 in this case is hereby vacated and the writ application itself is dismissed as infructuous. Narendra/ ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J. )