IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18660 of 2009 1. MAHANTH AWADH BIHARI DAS CHELA OF SWAMI SRI RAM KISHOR DAS, R/O K-56/53 ASHWAR GANGI, AWASANGANJ, VARANASI (U.P.), AT PRESENT MAHANTH, CHINTAMANICHAK, POKASI, P.S. MOKAMAH IN THE DISTRICT OF PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE BIHAR STATE RELIGIOUS TRUST BOARD, PATNA THROUGH ITS SUPERINTENDENT 3. THE ADMINISTRATOR BIHAR STATE RELIGIOUS TRUST BOARD, VIDYAPATI MARG, PATNA 4. THE ADMINISTRATOR CUM SPECIAL OFFICER BIHAR STATE RELIGIOUS TRUST BOARD, VIDYAPATI MARG, PATNA 5. BHOLA DAS S/O NOT KNOWN R/O VILL- POKASI P.O. KESAURI, P.S. PAKARI BARMA IN THE DISTRICT OF NAWADAH For the Petitioner:- Mr. Dinu Kumar, Advocate For the State:- Mr. Madhuresh Prasad, G.P.12 For the Respondent Board of Hindu Religious Trust (R. 2 to 4) :- Mr. Ganpati Trivedi & Mr. Madan Mohan, Advocates ----------- 02. 07.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and for the Bihar State Religious Trust Board. The petitioner claiming to the Mahanth of Sri Ram Janki Thakurbari, village and Post Office- Pokasi, District- Nawada, is aggrieved by the order dated 27.7.2009 as modified on 6.8.2009 appointing another as a Mahanth for a period of one year. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that show cause notice was given to the petitioner on 25.2.2009 for hearing with regard to appointment of the Mahanth. The petitioner replied the same. Without any final decision being taken the impugned order has been passed. 2 Learned counsel for the Board submits that the reference to the petitioner in the show cause notice dated 25.2.2009 was an error. It has been explained in paragraph-16 of the counter affidavit that the reference to the petitioner and Sri Ram Janki Thakurbari, village and Post Office- Pokasi in notice dated 25.2.2009 was wrongly entered. In any event of the matter, the appointment by the order dated 27.7.2009/6.08.2009 was for a period of one year which has also lapsed. He therefore submits that the application has become infructuous. Referring to paragraph-26 of the counter affidavit it is submitted that the enquiry with regard to the status of the petitioner is still pending consideration. The petitioner claims to be the Mahanth of Sri Ram Janki Thakurbari at village Pokasi. The Trust Board issued him a show cause notice on 25.2.2009. In its counter affidavit before this court, it urges that the show cause notice was erroneous insofar as the petitioner is concerned. It is submitted that even if any other person was appointed as a Mahanth, pending consideration of the cause shown in the notice dated 25.2.2009 it has become infructuous as the term of the said Mahanth has also expired. In the same breadth, it is stated from paragraph- 26 of the counter affidavit 3 that the representation of the petitioner for his claim to his Mahanthship of Sri Ram Janki Thakurbari of village Pokasi is pending consideration. The stand of the Board before the Court appears to be a bundle of contradictions. If the show cause notice dated 25.2.2009 was erroneous as argued by the Board, with regard to the status of the petitioner as the Mahanth of Sri Ram Janki Thakurbari of village Pokasi, any reply by petitioner was superfluous and irrelevant. There was no occasion to consider the same, if the show cause notice itself was wrong. There can be no matter pending consideration with regard to the show cause notice dated 25.2.2009. The counter affidavit does not plead any other show cause notice given to the petitioner with regard to his claim of Mahanthship to Sri Ram Janki Thakurbari of village Pokasi. Therefore, in view of the statements made in the counter affidavit, it is more than apparent that the consideration, that the Board is talking off with regard to the petitioner arising out of the show cause notice dated 25.2.2009, on the own showing of the Board, there is nothing for them to consider. The petitioner stands as the Mahanth of Sri Ram Janki Thakurbari at Pokasi. This order however does not preclude the 4 Board in view of its stand taken before this Court that the show cause notice dated 25.2.2009 was erroneous insofar as the petitioner is concerned, from issuing him a fresh show cause notice and then adjudicating the matter after due opportunity to him in accordance with law. The application stands disposed in the aforesaid terms in view of the stand of the respondents themselves which leaves the Court satisfied of the present status of the petitioner, subject to any fresh order that the Board may pass in a fresh proceeding in accordance with law. The application stands disposed. P.K. ( Navin Sinha, J.)