IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3268 of 2007 Mahanth Ram Kumar Das Sastri disciple of Mahanth Tribhuwan Das, resident of Village-Maniappa, Pergana-Ballia, P.S. –Matihani, District- Begusarai (Bihar). ……..Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through its Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. Bihar State Board of Religious Trusts through its Administrator- cum-C.E.O. 3. The Administrator-cum-C.E.O., Bihar State Board of Religious Trusts. 4. The District Magistrate, Begusarai. 5. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Begusarai. 6. The Block Development Officer, Matihani, District-Begusarai. 7. The Circle Officer, Matihani, District-Begusarai. ….Respondents 1st Party. 8. Geneshwar Kunwar, son of Late Dhanik Kunwar. 9. Rajeev Ranjan @ Rajeev Ranjan Sharma son of Ram Sagar Sharma. Both are resident of Village-Maniappa, P.S.- Matihani, District- Begusarai. …..Respondents 2nd Party. ----------- For the petitioner : M/s. Pramod Mishra & Prafull Chandra Thakur, Advocates. For the State : Mr. Ravi Verma, Advocate. For Bihar State Religious: Mr. Shekhar Singh, Advocate. Trust Board ---------- 06/ 21.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State of Bihar as well as learned counsel for the Bihar State Board of Religious Trusts and its authorities. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated 23.02.2007 (Annexure-5) by which Administrator-cum- Officer on Special Duty of the Bihar State Board of Religious Trust (respondent no.3) directed the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to remove the petitioner as trustee of Purani Thakurbari, Maniappa within the district of Begusarai and take charge forthwith. 2 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said order is absolutely illegal, bad and without jurisdiction as respondent no.3 had no jurisdiction to pass such order and such order can be passed only by the Board and hence the said order of the Administrator not even having been ratified by the Board it cannot be given effect to as even after the formation of the Board in the year 2010, the Board has not ratified the said order which is going to be given effect to. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a decision of this court in case of Prem Shankar Bharatee, Chela vs. State of Bihar and others, reported in 2007(2) P.L.J.R. 443. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Thakurbari in question is not even registered with the Board. Hence, the Board or any authority cannot pass such order with respect thereto. He also contends that apart from the aforesaid grounds, there are several other grounds which clearly show that the said order of the Administrator is absolutely illegal and bad due to which the petitioner filed Title Suit No.70 of 2006 which is pending before the Munsif-I, Begusaria. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Bihar State Board of Religious Trusts and its authorities (respondent nos. 2 and 3) submits that the Board had been superseded much before 2007 and hence Administrator-cum- Officer on Special Duty was functioning in place of the Board and in that capacity he had passed the said order. He further submits that under the provision of Section 28(3) of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act, 1950 there is a provision for filing an appeal 3 against such order, but without availing the aforesaid remedy, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition. He further submits that since the suit is pending as per the claim of the petitioner, there is no occasion for entertaining this writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for the State of Bihar and its authorities submits that Thakurbari (temple) in question has already been registered and a new committee has been constituted by the Administrator as far back as on 10.12.2007 which has never been challenged by the petitioner and the said Committee is functioning. He further submits that petitioner has been partly evicted from the Thakurbari in compliance of the impugned order. 7. Considering the aforesaid averments made by learned counsel for the parties and also perusing the materials on record, it is quite apparent that at the relevant time when order dated 23.02.2007 was passed by the Administrator-cum-Officer on Special Duty, the Board was non-existent as it had been superseded earlier and in its place the said Administrator-cum- Officer on Special Duty was functioning. In the said circumstances, there was no occasion for the Administrator-cum- Officer on Special Duty to take any sanction from a non-existent Board, nor there was any question of subsequent ratification of that order as the said Administrator-cum-Officer on Special Duty was acting and managing the affairs in place of the Board. 8. The decision relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner in case of Prem Shankar Bharatee, Chela (supra) is with respect to completely a different situation when the Board was in 4 function and its Chairman had passed the order without any prior permission of the Board nor any ratification was made by the Board after passing of the said order. In the said circumstances, the case law is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. 9. It is also apparent that an appeal is clearly provided under Section 28(3) of the Act against such order, but when the said order was never challenged before the appropriate authority under the said provision, the impugned order has to be given effect to and there is no occasion for any ratification by the Board much subsequently in the year 2010 as the said order was passed by the Administrator-cum- Officer on Special Duty during the supersession of the Board. 10. Furthermore, according to submission made by learned counsel for the respondents, the impugned order has been given effect to and a new Committee of the Thakurbari (temple) has been constituted which has been registered as far back as in the year 2007 which had never been challenged by the petitioner, hence there is no occasion for passing any order in favour of the petitioner in this regard. 11. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances it is clear that the entire claim of petitioner is absolutely frivolous, and, accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Sunil ( S. N. Hussain, J.)