IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16658 of 2011 Dr. Phramaha Phan Supajaro (Thackrathoke), Son of Thaokrathoke (Abbot of Wat Thai Nalanda Bihar, India) Resident of Village- Wat Kudyakyai, District- Chokchai, State - Nokhonrat Chasima, Thailand, at present residing at Wat Thai Nalanda, P.S.- Silao, District- Nalanda, Bihar. . . . . . . . . . Petitioner. Versus 1. The Chairman, Canara Bank 13th & 14th Floor, 'E' 85 Cuffe Parade, Colaba, Mumbai. 2. The Divisional Manager, Canara Bank, Circle Office, Luv-Kush Towers, Exhibition Road. 3. The Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Nalanda. 4. The State of Bihar through the District Magistrate, Nalanda, Bihar 5. The Superintendent of Police, Nalanda. 6. Dr. Arree Pongsai @ Dr. Maichhi Pongsai Aari D/O Keew Pongsai Resident of Wat Thai Temple, Nalanda, P.O. & P.S.- Silao, District- Nalanda. . . . . . . . . Respondents. ---------------------------------- 5/ 08.12.2011 In the instant writ application, the petitioner prays for issuance of direction to respondent Canara Bank, Nalanda to refrain from releasing any money standing in the name of Late Wat Thai Nalanda (Dr. Pharnaha Thonguluan Buakau) in favour of respondent no.7, on the basis of Letter of Administration obtained on misrepresentation of facts and for recall of which a Misc. case no.05 of 2009 is pending before 1st Additional District Judge, Nalanda. The petitioner is the present Abbot of the Wat Thai Nalanda duly appointed by the Chief of Dhammaduta in India of Royal Wat Thai, Buddhgaya. Respondent no.6 is present in person in view of order dated 29.11.2011. On request of Government of India on the occasion of 2500th Anniversary of Buddha Jayanti, the Government of Thailand was invited for construction of a Thai Monastery in India at Buddha Gaya in the State of Bihar. Thus, the Royal Wat 2 Thai, Buddha Gaya came into existence, which subsequently established six different temples under its ‘Order’ at different places in the country and one of such temples has been established at Nalanda. According to petitioner, the Wat Thai Nalanda was founded by by Ven. Jagadisa Kassapa, who donated 93 decimals of land at Nalanda to Royal Wat Thai, Buddha Gaya in the year 1971. The present Monastery Wat Thai, Nalanda stands on the above donated land. The Abbot of Wat Thai, Nalanda rules his monks, novice and devout layman and is the sole disciplinary and administrative head of the Wat Thai, Nalanda and is also the financial head right of the temple. All accounts and fixed deposits are maintained in the name of Abbot of Wat Thai, Nalanda, who is the trustee of the property of the temple. According to the petitioner, only a male, scholar of high standing and a Thai citizen can be appointed as Abbot. According to him, no females are allowed in the Order of Thai Monks. He further submits that one Dr. Phranaha Thonguluan Buakau was appointed as Abbot by Royal Wat Thai, Buddha Gaya. During his tenure fixed deposits were created in various Banks in the personal name of the Abbot and included deposits worth Rs.24,03,418/-. The Wat Thai, Nalanda has also a locker bearing no.39 in Canara Bank, Nalanda, in which valuable donations in form of Gold and other materials received from donee are stored, is to be operated by Wat of Abbot. 3 The petitioner submits that respondent no.7 arrived in India in the year 1973. It is alleged that despite expiry of tourist Visa, she is still living in Nalanda. It is submitted that respondent no.7, who is 65 years of age, has married one Mangal Paswan, who is 10 years younger in her age, with a view to short circuit the process of deportation. On 16.08.2007, Dr. T. Buakau, the Abbot of Wat Thai, Nalanda has died and respondent no.7 some how took charge of all the details and documents relating to fixed deposit as well as key to the Bank locker. The petitioner submits that respondent no.7 filed application for grant of Letter of Administration vide case no.01 of 2008 under Section 278 of the Indian Succession Act and was granted Letters of Administration on 14.02.2008. The petitioner submits that respondent no.7 neither made Royal Wat Thai, Buddha Gaya nor the petitioner as respondent in the trial court. The petitioner further submits that respondent no.7 received a Succession Certificate instead of Letter of Administration, as had been ordered in case no. 01 of 2008. The petitioner apprehends that on the basis of said Succession Certificate, respondent no.7 may withdraw the fixed deposits as well various valuable articles and metals from the locker, which runs into Millions. The petitioner submits that he was appointed Abbot of Wat Thai, Nalanda on 15.07.2008 by Royal Wat Thai, Buddha Gaya. The petitioner instituted Misc. Case no.05 of 4 2009 seeking revocation of Letter of Administration granted in favour of respondent no.7. The petitioner also filed an injunction petition with a prayer to restrain respondent no.7 from withdrawing the money as well as other valuable properties from the Bank. The trial court dismissed the injunction petition, as the respondent no.7 is in possession of Letter of Administration and has executed indemnity bond of Rs.5,00,000/-. The court further laid the condition that respondent no.7 would withdraw any amount only with due intimation to the court. The petitioner preferred Misc. Appeal No. 835 of 2010 against order dated 17.09.2010 refusing injunction in Misc. Case no. 05 of 2009. The Misc. appeal was dismissed with an observation that as and when the appellant considers it necessary, he may challenge the action of respondent. He would not stand precluded from challenging the action of respondent. Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, learned senior counsel, has appeared suo motu for respondent no.6. He submits that the instant writ application is not maintainable, as the two courts’ had rejected the prayer of the petitioner to restrain respondent no.6 from operating bank account. He submits that the apprehension of the petitioner that respondent no.6 would flee away from the country after withdrawing the entire money from the Bank as well as from the locker is misconceived. He submits that the court while refusing the prayer for injunction filed by 5 the petitioner has imposed sufficient safeguards in so much so that respondent no.6 would not make any withdrawal without intimation to the court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent no.6 on her own has opted to appear in person to assure the court that she does not have any intention to run away with the money or the valuables. The petitioner submits that respondent no6 is surrounded by a coterie, who have greedy eyes on the money and valuables deposited in the Bank. The petitioner further submits that respondent no.6 may fall in trap of such persons and may decamp with money. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent no.6 and learned counsel for Canara Bank. Respondent no.6 has been granted Letter of Administration / Succession Certificate in Letter of Administration case no. 01 of 2008 filed under Section 278 of the Indian the Indian Succession Act. The petitioner has filed misc. Case no.05 of 2009 for revocation of Letters of Administration granted in favour of respondent no.6. The trial court while rejecting the injunction petition of the petitioner has observed that any withdrawal by respondent no.6 from the Bank would be made only after due intimation to the court. I find that the court has imposed sufficient safeguards against scrupulous withdrawal. The trial court order was also not interfered in appeal preferred by the petitioner. At this juncture, I would only 6 observe that respondent no.6 apart from intimating the court of such withdrawal would also intimate the purpose for such withdrawal is being made to Chief Abbot at Budhgaya. Pursuant to order dated 29.11.2011, the respondent no.6 has appeared in person. Respondent no.6 has stated before the Court that she is not interested in operating the locker or removing any valuables from it. She would merely like to have photo copy of some of the documents kept in the locker to safeguard her own interest. She submits that withdrawal of money would be made only for the purpose of temple itself. She also submits that she is not interested in withdrawing any valuables from the lockers save and except for using the same for the purpose of temple on occasional ceremonies, whereafter the valuables would again be deposited in the locker. So far as operation of locker is concerned, one has to tread the issue cautiously. The Branch Manager or the Chief Manager in presence of the petitioner would make three copies of inventories of the valuables and documents kept in the locker with due signature of the respondent no.6. One copy of the inventory would be kept in Bank in sealed cover. One copy would be kept in sealed cover in the trial court. Any withdrawal from locker would be made only in presence of the Branch Manager or the Chief Branch Manager after preparing an inventory of the same with due signature of respondent no.6. Respondent no.6 would also give necessary intimation to the 7 trial court regarding such withdrawal as well. This application is disposed of with the aforesaid direction. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)