IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10776 of 2009 ***** 1. Raveendra Nath Pandey S/o late Ramadhar Pandey, resident of village- Bheriharwa tola, P.S. Bairgania, distt. Sitamarhi. 2. Ram Janki Deities installed in the mandir situate at village Bheriharwa tola, P.S. Bairgania, distt. Sitamarhi through their sewait Raveendra Nath Pandey. …. …. Petitioners Versus 1. The Bihar State Board of Religious Trusts, Vidyapati Marg, P.S. Kotwali, town and distt. Patna through the administrator. 2. Administrator, Bihar State Board of Religious Trusts, Vidyapati Marg, P.S. Kotwali, town and distt. Patna. 3. Shri Sashi Bhushan Singh, Superintendent, Bihar State Board of Religious Trusts, Vidyapati Marg, P.S. Kotwali, town and distt. Patna. 4. Collector, Sitamarhi. 5. Addl. Collector, Sitamarhi. 6. Executive Magistrate, Sitamarhi. 7. Anchal Adhikari, Bairgania, distt. Sitamarhi. 8. Block Agriculture Officer, Bairgania, distt. Sitamarhi. …. …. Respondents 1st party 9. The State of Bihar. 10. Raghav Vajpayee, S/o Jainarain Vajpayee (deceased) resident of village- Bheriharwa tola, P.S. Bairgania, distt. Sitamarhi. …. …. Respondents 2nd party. ----------- 2. 27.8.2009. Heard counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent Bihar State Board of Religious Trusts. Challenge is to the letter dated 24.4.2009 addressed to the District Magistrate, Sitamarhi with regard to one so-called Shri Ram Janki Mandir located at Village+Post- Akta (Bajpayee Tola), by virtue of this communication the Administrator, Bihar State Board of Religious Trusts has demanded a list of 9 or 11 Hindus including a Dalit to be appointed as trustees to run the affairs of the trust. Submission of the counsel is that the property in question is a private property of the petitioner which he has been inheriting from his forefathers and it is not even a registered trust so far. If that be so then the respondents have no authority to embark on this - 2 - venture. Further if they have a serious doubt about the nature of the trust, there ought to have been an enquiry and finding recorded in this regard before the consequential action can be taken by them to run the affairs of the trust or the property. Learned counsel representing the respondent Board submits that after that communication contained in Annexure-12 a further notice has been issued to the petitioner which is contained in Annexure-10, thereafter a detailed show cause has also been filed by him and the matter is being looked into by the Board. No final decision has been taken till date in this regard. It is also contended that the stand taken by the petitioner that the trust is not a registered trust is misplaced because there is a registration number which had been given to show that the trust is registered. The rival contention of the two parties need not be adjudicated upon by this court at this stage because it is the requirement of law that the respondents first must establish the nature of the trust before they can effectively start exercising authority over the property in question. Since this fact is accepted that a kind of enquiry is going on and a show cause has been filed by the petitioner because of the intended damage or mischief which was likely to be caused in pursuance to Annexure-12, the matter will have to be decided first by the Board. In view of the above it is hereby recorded that there will be no enforcement of Annexure-12 nor shall there be any interim arrangement made till a final decision is rendered by the Board with regard to the nature of the property and the truest of which petitioner - 3 - claims to be the owner. The writ application stands disposed of with the above observation. Pawan/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)