Shree Raghubansh Bibhushan Thakurbari, though Shabait Mahanth Satrughan Das, situated at village-Bhangra, P.O.-Jiroll, P.S.-Khirhar (Harlakhi) District-Madhubani and Mahanth Satrughan Das vs The Bihar State Board of Religious trust, Patna, The Chairman, the Bihar State Board of Religious Trust, Patna and The Circle Officer, Harlakhi, District-Madhubani

Shivaji Pandey, J.—In this writ application, the petitioner has challenged the letter No. 2658 dated 14.2.1986 issued by the Chairman, Bihar State Board of Religious Trust, Bihar Patna, (Respondent No. 2) whereby and whereunder the Circle Officer, Herlakhi, Madhubani (Respondent No. 3) was appointed as a temporary Trustee as per the provision of Section 33 of Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act.

Short fact of the case is that the Thakurbari was established by Manjhaulia State, Sitamarhi and Late Mahant, Bishambar Dasjee was appointed for maintenance of Thakurbari and offering of Rag and Bhog. During in his life time Late Mahant Bishambar Dasjee handed over the Thakurbari to Late Bachcha Prasad Diwedi who is the father of the petitioner. The father of the petitioner who was died on 17.4.1994 and during his life time he had handed over the charge of the temple to the petitioner and he is managing and holding all affairs of the Thakurbari. The petitioner has claimed that the temple has 9 bihgas 18 kathas and 18 dhurs land in which about 10 bighas land is only for cultivation and rest land are bhit, dih, tank and sehal. The petitioner is paying rent for the aforesaid land to the State of Bihar and is getting the receipts regularly which is annexed to the writ petition vide Annexure-1. He has further claimed that he has also paid rent to Rs. 1,000/- in token and thereof he has annexed the receipt in this writ petition vide Annexure- 2. The petitioner has received a Memo No. 138 dated 17.5.1996 by which he came to know that the Chairman of the Board vide letter No. 2658 dated 14.2.1996 removed the petitioner as a Trustee/Sevait of the Thakurbari under the powers vested u/s 33 of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act and the Circle Officer, Herlakhi has been appointed as a temporary Trustee of the Trust and the petitioner was directed to hand over the trust property to the Circle Officer, Herlakhi within three days. He has further stated that before passing the aforesaid order neither he was given the notice nor any opportunity was given to him nor any show cause was issued except the letter dated 14.2.1996 which has been issued against him and thereby the petitioner has wrongly been removed as a Sevait of the Thakurbari. The petitioner states that he has filed representations on 24.6.1996 and on 24.8.1996 and thereby raised objection with regard to appointment of Circle Officer, Herlakhi as a temple of Trustee and submitting that the action of the Board is unjustified and illegal.

The Board has appeared and filed its affidavit and claimed that the petitioner was not in Sevait and there is no document to show that he was Sevait of the said Trust. Further stated that Board had served a notice vide letter No. 30.11.1996 to the petitioner asking him to produce document in support of his contention with regard to his appointment as a Sevait and also deposit an amount to Rs. 30,000/- so that his claim for Sevaitship can be considered by the Board. The counsel for the Board has submitted that as the petitioner was not a Sevait of the Trust and as such on the death of the Sevait, the Board has a power to appoint a person to temporary Trustee on the strength of Section 33 of the Bihar Hindu Religious Act. The Section 33 of the Bihar Hindu Religious Act is as follows:-

If there is a vacancy in the office of trustee of a religious trust and there is no one competent to be appointed a Trustee under the terms of the deed of such trust or where there is a bonafide dispute as to the right of any person to act as trustee and in the opinion of the Board there is likelihood of a breach of the peace or serious interference with the management of the property of such trust. [ or where there is a vacancy caused by the order of the Board passed under clause (h) of sub-section (2) of sub-section 28 of this Act the Board may subject to any order of a competent Court appoint any person to act as trustee of the said trust for such period and upon such conditions as it thinks fit.

In appointing a person as trustee under sub-section (1), the Board shall if possible select a person of the section to which the last trustee belonged.

This Section gives a power to the Board, to appoint trustee of a religious Trust in two circumstances. If where there is a vacancy in the office of trustee of religious trust and there was no one competent to be appointed as trustee under the terms of the deed of such trust or where there is a bonafide dispute as to the right of any person to be appointed as a trustee, the Board has a power to appoint a temporary Trustee to prevent the likelihood of a breach of peace and to prevent serious interference with the management of the property of such trust, the Board has power to appoint Circle Officer as a Trustee for the temporary period.

The counsel for the petitioner has relied on provision of Section 28(2)(h) (iii) of the Act and claiming that he had been removed from sebaitship without any show cause as it was a duty of the Board, while passing the order to follow the procedure and at least a notice was required to be given to him.

Without deciding the issue in this present writ application I am remanding the case to the Bihar State Board of Religious Trust and giving a direction to the petitioner to produce this order along with the proper application annexing documentary proof, if any, within one month from to-day and if the petitioner will file the application within the aforesaid period, his position will not be disturbed as this Court while passing the order dated 30.4.1997 for had given interim relief of Status quo. If the application is filed within the aforesaid period along with the documents in support of contention, the Authority would decide after giving proper notice to the parties concerned about the status of the petitioner within six months from the day of his filing of this application. If the petitioner would not file the application within the aforesaid period then this order the status quo will be deemed to have been vacated.

With the above observation and direction, this writ petition is disposed of.