IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15360 of 2009 Sukhdeo Giri, Son of Late Ramotar Giri Disciple (Chela) of Late Mahanth Ram Lakhan Bharti, Neelakanth Mahadeo Math, Resident of Village Musapur, P.S. Sarairanjan, District Samastipur. ------ Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Religious Affairs, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. Bihar State Board of Religious Trusts through its Administrator- cum-Special Executive Officer, Vidyapati Marg, Patna-800 001. 3. The Administrator-cum-Special Executive Officer, Bihar State Board of Religious Trusts, Vidyapati Marg, Patna-800 001. 4. Shri Dayal Sharan Gupta, Son of Late Siyasharan Gupta, Resident of Village Ghataho, P.S. Ghataho, District Samastipur. 5. Shri Ram Nagina Singh, Son of Late Raja Ram Singh, Resident of Village Sahwajpur, P.S. Ujiyarpur, District Samastipur. 6. Shri Arvind Giri, Son of Late Badri Narayan Giri, Resident of Village Sultanpur, Ghataho, P.S. Ghataho, District Samastipur. 7. Shri Rajeev Ranjan, Son of Late Jagata Mahto, Resident of Village Khajautia, P.S. Ghataho, District Samastipur. 8. Shri Shyam Nandan Chaudhary, Son of Late Ramakant Chaudhary, Resident of Village Khojautia, P.S. Ghataho, District Samastipur. 9. Shri Sambhu Prasad Singh, Son of Late Ayodhya Prasad, Resident of Village Musapur, P.S. Ghataho, District Samastipur. 10. Shri Sant Kumar Singh (Mukhiya), Son of Late Baleshwar Mukhiya, Resident of Village Musapur, P.S. Ghataho, District Samastipur. 11. Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta (Mukhiya), Son of Guru Prasad Gupta, Resident of Village Sultanpur, Ghataho, P.S. Ghataho, District Samastipur. ------ Respondents. For the petitioner : Mr. B.P. Pandey, Senior Advocate Mr. S.C. Giri, Advocate For the State : S.C. 21 For the Board : Mr. Ganpati Trivedi, Advocate Mr. Madan Mohan, Advocate For Res. Nos. 4 to 11 : Mr. Nazmul Hoda, Advocate ---------- 7 20.12.2011 Heard the parties. This writ application has been filed challenging the validity of the order passed by the Administrator of the Bihar State Board of Religious Trust (hereinafter referred to as „the Board) by which a scheme has been 2 framed and a Committee constituted to look after the affairs of what has been named as Neelkanth Mahadeo Math by the Administrator. Ram Charan Bharti founded a trust several years back. After his death he had nominated Karam Chand Bharti as the Mahanth of the trust. Karan Chand Bharti nominated Ram Lakhan Bharti as the Mahanth on 6.1.1937. During the tenure of Ram Lakhan Bharti, there was dispute between Ram Lakhan Bharti and one Ramanand Bharti. Each of them claimed that they were the Mahanth of the said Math. Finally the matter came before the Board and the Board by Annexure-B accepted Ram Lakhan Bharti as the Mahanth of Neelkanth Mahadeo Math. From Annexure-B which is dated 28.3.1988, it would also be apparent that the Neelkanth Mahadeo Math was recorded with the Board between 1975-76 to 1978-79. Sukhdeo Giri the petitioner was nominated as the successor of Ram Lakhan Bharti in 1983 and after his death continued to perform the duties of the Mahanth. Sometime in the year 1979, some of the villagers got together and raised an objection before the Board claiming that the petitioner is siphoning of money 3 belonging to the Math and his sons are mortgaging the lands of the Math and thus misutilizing the property. The Board issued a notice to the petitioner. The petitioner replied to the notice by filing two petitions. In one petition the petitioner has stated that the Board may conduct an inquiry under Section 32 of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act, 1950 and in reply the petitioner has also justified the fact that the allegations against him are untrue and that he is not responsible for what his sons do. In Court it has also been pointed out that the documents of mortgage produced by the opposite party do not indicate the plot of the land and as such, these documents appear to be manufactured by the interested parties. After going through the show-cause, the administrator by an order dated 22.6.2009 prepared a scheme for the Math and thereafter constituted a Committee of nine persons, the petitioner being one of the Committee members. The said decision of the administrator was notified in the official gazette as required under the law on 1.7.2009. The petitioner objects to the 4 manner in which the administrator has constituted a Committee. The first leg of his argument is that before constituting a Committee, there should have been a proper inquiry as envisaged under Section 32 of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act, 1950. Section 32 of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act, 1950 indicates as follows: 32. Power of Board to settle schemes for proper administration of religious trusts.- (1) The Board may, of its own motion or on application made to it in this behalf by two or more persons interested in any trust,- (a) settle a scheme for such religious trust after making such enquiry a it thinks fit and giving notice to the trustee of such trust and to such other person as may appear to the Board to be interested therein; (b) in like manner and subject to the like conditions, modify any scheme settled under this section or under any other law or substitute another scheme in its stand: Provided that any scheme so settled, modified or substituted shall be in accordance with the law governing the trust and shall not be contrary to the wishes of the founder so far as such wishes can be ascertained. (2) A scheme settled, modified or substituted instead of another scheme under his section shall unless otherwise ordered by the District Judge on an application, if any, made under sub-section (3), come into force on a day to be appointed by the Board in this behalf and shall be published in the Official Gazette. (3) The trustee of, or any other person interested in, such trust may within three months from the date of the publication in the Official Gazette of the scheme so 5 settled, modified or substituted instead of another scheme, as the case may be make an application to the District Judge for varying, modifying or setting aside the scheme; but subject to the result of such application, the order of the Board under sub-section (1) and (2) shall be final and binding upon the trustee of the religious trust and upon every other person interested in such religious trust. (4) An order passed by the District Judge on any application made under sub- section (3) shall be final. On perusal of the documents which have been brought on record by the petitioner, the private respondents and the Board, this Court finds that infact no inquiry was conducted by the administrator rather on an application made by certain persons, he considered their application and appointed them as members of the Committee to run the trust. It has also been argued that the administrator does not have the power to pass this order as it is barred by sub clause C of Section 81A which reads as follows: Where the constitution of the Board has been declared illegal election shall be held and appointments made for the purpose of reconstituting the Board within a period of 48 months from the date of order of the Court. In order to substantiate his claim, learned counsel for the petitioner relies on 6 a judgment of this Court delivered in the case of Pitamber Thakur V. Bihar State Board of Religious Trust, [1995 (2) PLJR 242]. After going through the decision referred to above, this Court finds that infact the decision does not help the petitioner as Section 8A of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act, 1950 which was added by an amendment in the year 1992 was challenged in this case and has been upheld. Section 8A of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act, 1950 reads as follows: [8A. The Board of Hindu Religious, Trust shall, from the date of coming into force of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts (Amendment) Act, 1992, ceases to function and the Government, shall appoint an Administrator to exercise all the powers of the Board till the new Board under section 8 is constituted. Under the provisions of section 8A inserted in the Act by Amendment Act of 1992, the State Government has been empowered thereunder to appoint an Administrator to exercise all the powers of the Bihar Rajya Hindu Religious Trust Board till the new “Board” under section 8 of the Act is constituted. Section 8A however of the Act does not authorize appointment of the Administrator to be made for an indefinite period where appointment of the Administrator is made for an indefinite period, namely “Until further orders”, the appointment not being made in terms of section 8A will be wholly unauthorized and without jurisdiction. Pitamber Thakur V. Bihar State Board of Religious Trust, 1995 (2) BLJ 278 : 1995 (2) PLJR 242. Section 8A as enacted is constitutionally valid as it has obviously 7 intended to serve a limited purpose, namely to tide over the temporary phase for the period of interregnum before the “Board” is reconstituted. Ibid.] Under the provisions of Section 8A inserted in 1992, the State Government has been empowered thereunder to appoint an administrator to exercise all the powers of the Bihar Rajya Hindu Religious Trust Board till the new “Board” under Section 8 of the Act is constituted. Section 8A however, does not authorize appointment of the administrator to be made for an indefinite period namely “until further orders”. In this case there is no pleading to show that the administrator was appointed in a manner which was redundant to Section 8A and as such the Court cannot give any finding on this ground raised by the petitioner. The petitioner also relies on a judgment delivered in the case of Rajasthani Dharamshala Vs. The Bihar State Board of Religious Trust [1988 PLJR 333]. The facts of the case were that the Special Officer of the Board had issued a communication dated 29.8.1987 appointed a Committee for management of Rajasthani Dharamshala at 8 Rajganj Road, Katrasgarh, Dhanbad. While doing so, the Board had not framed a scheme and under such circumstances, this Court quashed the communication constituting a management committee. The facts of this case are not applicable to the facts of the present case in as much, that a scheme has been constituted by the Board before making appointment of the Managing Committee. This Court may also point out that there are certain pleadings in this writ application which have to be noted as they appear to be indirect conflict with the stand taken by the petitioner. The petitioner claims that Ram Lakhan Bharti had executed a will in 1983 in his favour, by which the petitioner was entitled to mutate his name as owner of the property. By the said Will the petitioner claims that he was appointed successor of the Math. This Will has been put to probate by the petitioner by filing Probate Case No. 9 of 2010-11. The petitioner had also raised an objection regarding the formation of the Committee with respect to three persons with whom he is on litigating terms. Show-cause 9 was issued to the three persons concerned and the claim of the petitioner was rejected. It is also on record that a show-cause was issued to the petitioner by the Board for removal of the petitioner from the Committee. Considering all the facts stated aforesaid and the questions that have been raised in this case, this Court finds that as far as the disputed facts regarding the Math etc. are concerned, this Court cannot give any finding as the matter is pending before an appropriate authority. The main problem for the Board in this case is that merely on an application made by certain persons that the petitioner was selling off property or misutilizing the properties of the Math, a Committee should be constituted without making a full fledged inquiry, looking into the documents conducting a hearing, cross- examining witnesses who are making allegations against the petitioner and also without considering that those who have made allegations are for some reason or the other reasons on litigating terms with the petitioner, in the opinion of the Court the Committee could not have been constituted in 10 the manner it has been done. At the same time, this Court realizes that it is the duty of the Board to protect the property belonging to a religious trust and as such, some sort of arrangement has to be made by the Board in order to protect the properties of the trust. I, therefore, direct that the Board should conduct a proper inquiry before constituting a Committee and try to form a Committee which would be able to function together. Of course, the formation of the Committee to run the Math would be subject to the decision of the Civil Court in the probate case by which perhaps a declaration is sought that the petitioner has been appointed as the Mahanth of the Math. There is no gainsaying that even if the petitioner is duly appointed by a proper document as a Mahanth of the Math, he or any other person cannot be allowed on that ground to misutilize the properties of the Math. This Court, therefore, without quashing the order by which the Committee has been formed, directs that the Committee should be permitted to continue and while making inquiry and forming a new Committee. The 11 Board should try as far as possible to form a cohesive Committee. All the members of the Committee except Shambhu Prasad Singh and Sant Kumar Singh are represented in this Court. The Board is, therefore, directed to issue notice to only to aforesaid two persons. The matter may be heard and decided within a period of four months on receipt of a copy of this order. It is expected that the Board will not take coercive steps such as removing the petitioner from the Committee in pursuance to the show-cause issued by them during the inquiry. This writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)