IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9480 of 2004 1. Sanjay Kumar Jailwal 2. Sandeep Kumar Bhagat, Both sons of late Smt. Manorama Devi, wife of Shri Ram Babu, both residents of Mohalla- Bekapur Munger, P.S. Kotwali, District-Munger – Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE BIHAR STATE BOARD OF RELIGIOUS TRUST, THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, BIDYAPATI MARG, PATNA 800 001. 3. CIRCLE OFFICER, SADAR, MUNGER, DISTRICT MUNGER. 4. SHEO SHANKAR JAISWAL SON OF LATE GANGA JAISWAL, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA BARI BAZAR, MUNTER, POLICE STATION KOTWALI, DISTRICT MUNGER. 5. DR. SUMIT KUMAR SON OF DOMAN YADAV, MANSARITALE, PURUNIGANJ MUNGER, POLICE STATION SAFIASARAI, DISTRICT MUNGER. 6. RABI BHUSHAN LAL SON OF SHRI RASHIK BIHARI LAL, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA DURGA ASTHAN, BEKAPUR, POLICE STATION KOTWALI, DISTRICT MUNGER. 7. GANESH PRASAD SINGH SON OF LATE JAHURI PRASAD SINGH, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA BEKAPUR, POLICE STATION KOTWALI, DISTRICT MUNGER. 8. TARKESHWAR PRASAD JAISWAL SON OF LATE LAXMI NARAIN JAISWAL, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA BEKAPUR, POLICE STATION KOTWALI, DISTRICT MUNGER. 9. BINOD PRASAD SINGH SON OF SHRI REVATI RAMAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA BEKAPUR, POLICE STATION KOTWALI, DISTRICT MUNGER. 10. SHEONANDAN PANDEY SON OF LATE CHANDRAMANI PANDEY, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA BEKAPUR, POLICE STATION KOTWALI, DISTRICT MUNGER. 11. SHEO SHANKAR YADAV SON OF NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA FARDA BAMKTOLA, POLICE STATION SAFIASARAI, DISTRICT MUNGER --- RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the petitioners: Mrs. M. Chatterjee, Adv. For Bihar State Board of Religious Trust: Mr. Shekhar Singh, Adv. 2 For the Respondent no. 4 & 5: M/S Abdul Mannan Khan with Binay Kumar Bineet, Adv. 6/ 13-04-2011 Heard the parties. 2. Originally, the present writ petition was filed by one Smt. Manorma Devi, questioning the validity and legality of the notification dated 17.07.2004 (Annexure-6), whereby respondent Bihar State Board of Religious Trusts, in exercise of its power in terms of section 28(2)(h) of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950 ( in short “the Act”), had removed her from the post of trustee of Thakur Shri Bara Gopal Ji Wagairah Mandir, Mokam Pekapur (Bari Bazar) P.O. Munger, Thana-Kotwali, District- Munger, and a scheme was settled in terms of section 32 of the Act for proper management of the aforesaid trust. During the pendency of the present writ petition, aforesaid Smt. Manorma Devi died on 09.04.2007. Therefore, I.A. No. 2072 of 2008 was filed by her legal heirs and representatives for expunging her name from the array of the parties and for substituting them in her place as petitioners. Aforesaid I.A. No. 2072 of 2008 was finally allowed by this Court by order dated 07.04.2011. Now the legal heirs and representatives of aforesaid Smt. Manorma Devi (dead) are the present petitioners. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has assailed the validity of the impugned notification primarily on the ground that Thakur Shri Bara 3 Gopal Ji Wagairah Mandir, Munger is not a public trust, rather it is a private temple used by the petitioners and their family members. It is further submitted that unless and until the aforesaid temple is declared as a public trust, the Board has no jurisdiction to issue such a notification, removing the original petitioner from the post of trustee and for taking action in terms of section 32 of the Act for management of the affairs of the said trust. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Bihar State Board of Religious Trust and learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 4 and 5 have strongly opposed the prayers made in the present writ petition. According to them, since original trustee, Smt. Manorma Devi, has died during the pendency of the present proceeding; this writ petition has practically become infructuous, since her legal heirs have got no valid cause for pursuing the present litigation. They further submit that under section 28(2)(u) of the Act, if any dispute is raised as to whether a trust is a public or private trust in terms of section 02(L) of the Act, then that issue is required to be decided by the respondent Board itself and that becomes final, unless and until that is set aside by a competent court. 5. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that one title suit was filed by the petitioners for 4 almost similar reliefs, but learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the said title suit has been withdrawn. It has further been brought to the notice of this Court that a title suit was also filed by the private respondents for declaration of the trust in question as a public trust, but it is stated that aforesaid title suit has also been withdrawn. 6. After hearing the parties and on consideration of the materials available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that issues raised herein in the present proceeding are based on disputed question of facts. Facts are required to be conclusively decided by the statutory authority, and in the present case, the respondent Board. In view of the claims made by the petitioners that trust/temple is a private one and in view of the stand of the respondents that it is a public trust, issues are required to be thrashed out by the respondent Board by exercising its power under section 28(2)(u) of the Act by looking into all the materials placed by the parties in support of their respective claims. 7. In the background of the case, the present petitioners are hereby directed to file a detailed representation, along with a certified copy of the present order, before the Chairman of the respondent- Board, within a period of four weeks from today raising their 5 grievances with respect to the action taken by the Board and placing their claims that the trust in question is a private one. If such a representation is filed within the time prescribed by this Court along with a certified copy of the present order, then respondent-Board (Respondent no.1) shall be obliged to take a final decision in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and all other concerned persons including the private respondents within a period of four months from the date of filing of such representation. 8. It is made clear that if no such representation along with a certified copy of the present order is filed within the time prescribed by this Court, then it shall be construed that the present writ petition has finally been rejected by this Court. 9. For a period of five months, the operation of the notification (Annexure-6) shall be kept in abeyance. 10. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. BTiwary/ ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)