CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench(2002) 12 PAT CK 0002

Acharya Mahanth Raj Ballabh Das vs State of Bihar and Others

Patna High Court · Decided on 10 December 2002 · Citation: (2003) 1 PLJR 346

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ravi S. Dhavan, C.J · R.N. Prasad, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
L.P.A. No. 7/95
Download PDFAsk AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 351 words
1.

It is rather surprising that the appeal belongs to an ecclesiastical order but is fond of litigating.

2.

This Letters Patent appeal has been filed against an order dated 5.12.1994 on C.W.J.C. No. 2842/90, Acharya Mahanth Raj Ballabh Das v. The State of Bihar and Ors. In effect, the writ petition was held to be not maintainable. The learned Judge declined to go into the merits of the controversies and relegated the parties to their remedies u/s 55 of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Board Act, 1950. It is relevant to note on what exactly the order was on which a challenge was made to it on the writ petition. The order impugned is referred to in paragraph 1 of the writ petition. It is dated 18.4.1990 passed by the District Judge, Vaishali in Misc. Case No. 7/88 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition). After the order on the writ petition holding that the petition was not maintainable as a clear-cut alternative remedy by way of an appeal is available under the Act this Letters Patent Appeal should not have been filed. Apparently the Petitioner has answered this question for himself. Taking the hint that the writ petition was not maintainable, subsequently the Appellant filed Misc. Appeal No. 14/95, Acharya Mahanth Raj Ballabh Das v. The Special Officer, Bihar State Board of Religious Trusts and Anr. This appeal was filed u/s 55 of the Act aforesaid.

3.

The appeal was heard on merits and was dismissed by a judgment dated 12.4.1996. The question of the present Letters Patent Appeal, being considered does arise. As the writ petition was not maintainable in the face of a statutory alternate remedy, the writ petition was dis-missed. The submissions on the writ petition cannot be continued in a Letters Patent Appeal, which also is not maintainable. In fact, the Appellant even acted on the order of the writ petition and did file an appeal under the Act, aforesaid, and the said appeal was considered on merits. This Letters Patent Appeal is a parallel proceeding and an abuse of the process of the Court.

4.

Dismissed.