IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14346 of 2010 1. HARI SAH S/O SHEO DAYAL SAH R/O VILL NIPANIYA, P.O.SALEMPUR, P.S.ISUAPUR, DISTT-SARAN 2. SATYADEO PRASAD S/O VISHWAKARMA PRASAD R/O VILL NIPANIYA, P.O.SALEMPUR, P.S.ISUAPUR, DISTT-SARAN 3. PREM PRASAD S/O KEDAR SAH R/O VILL NIPANIYA, P.O.SALEMPUR, P.S.ISUAPUR, DISTT-SARAN Versus 1. THE BIHAR STATE(HINDU)RELIGIOUS TRUST BOARD VIDYAPATI MARG, PATNA THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN 2. MR. KISHROE KUNAL , CHAIRMAN, BIHAR STATE (HINDU) RELIGIOUS TRUST BOARD VIDYAPATI MARG, PATNA 3. GAJENDRA PRASAD VISHWAKARMA , ASSISTANT CHAIRMAN BIHAR STATE (HINDU) RELIGIOUS TRUST BOARD VIDYAPATI MARG, PATNA 4. DHRUB PRASAD S/O ASHARFI PRASAD R/O VILL NIPANIYA , P.O.SALEMPUR, P.S.ISUAPUR, DISTT-SARAN 5. UMA SHANKAR MISHRA S/O BHOLA MISHRA R/O VILL NIPANIYA , P.O.SALEMPUR, P.S.ISUAPUR, DISTT-SARAN 6. SUKHIT MANJHI S/O DWARKA MANJHI R/O VILL NIPANIYA , P.O.SALEMPUR, P.S.ISUAPUR, DISTT-SARAN 7. ASHOK SINGH S/O SATYANARAIN SINGH R/O VILL NIPANIYA , P.O.SALEMPUR, P.S.ISUAPUR, DISTT-SARAN 8. CHANDI MANJHI S/O DURGA MANJHI R/O VILL NIPANIYA , P.O.SALEMPUR, P.S.ISUAPUR, DISTT-SARAN 9. RAJENDRA PRASAD S/O CHHATHU SAH R/O VILL NIPANIYA , P.O.SALEMPUR, P.S.ISUAPUR, DISTT-SARAN 10. KISHORI SAH S/O SHEO DAYAL PRASAD R/O VILL NIPANIYA, P.O.SALEMPUR, P.S.ISUAPUR, DISTT-SARAN 11. TRILOKI PRASAD S/O VISHWAKARMA PRASAD R/O VILL NIPANIYA, P.O.SALEMPUR, P.S.ISUAPUR, DISTT-SARAN 12. HARI CHARAN PRASAD S/O RAGHUNATH PRASAD R/O VILL NIPANIYA, P.O.SALEMPUR, P.S.ISUAPUR, DISTT-SARAN 13. GAUTAM PRASAD S/O KEDAR SAH R/O VILL NIPANIYA , P.O.SALEMPUR, P.S.ISUAPUR, DISTT-SARAN ----------- 2/ 24/03/2011 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders are founded on the premise of an order by the Bihar State Hindu Religious Trust Board under Section-28(2) of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act,1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The order of the Trust Board under 2 Section-28(2) of the Act is itself not in accordance with law and therefore the impugned orders suffer from an inherent lack of jurisdiction. Faced with the difficulty that the validity of the order under Section- 28(2) of the Act cannot be examined in an injunction proceeding when the order would remain operative unless set aside in accordance with law, leave is sought to withdraw this application to pursue remedies appropriately against the order of the Board under Section-28(2) of the Act. What the petitioner proposes to do is for him to decide. There is no occasion for the Court to make any observations upon the same. The application is dismissed as withdrawn. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)