The absence of a provision with regard to the right of appeal does not necessarily mean that the law is unreasonable from the procedural aspect.

1. Under Sec.113 of the Code ot Civil Procedure the Additional District Judge of Bhagalpur has stated a case for the opinion o£ the High Court on the question whether the provisions of Sec. 48 of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950 (Bihar Act 1 of 1951), are void and inoperative.

2. Sec. 48 of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts, Act, 1950 (Bihar Act 1 of 1951) is in the following terms :

"48. (1) The Board, or with the previous sanction of the Board, any person interested in a religious trust may make an application to the District Judge for an order- (a) removing the trustee of such religious trust, if such trustee (i) acts in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the said trust; or

(ii) defaults on three or more occasions in the payment of any amount payable under any law for the time being in force in respect of the property or income of the said trust or any other statutory charge on such property or income; or

(iii) Defaults on three or more occasions in the payment of any sum payable to any beneficiary under the said trust, or in discharging any other duty imposed upon him under it; or

(iv) is guilty of a breach of trust;

(b) appointing a new trustee;

(c) vesting any property in a trustee;

(d) directing accounts and inquiries; or

(e) granting such further or other relief as the nature of the case may require.

(2) The order of the District Judge under Subsection (1) shall be final."

3. The view taken by the Additional District Judge is that the provisions of Section 48 of the Act are unconstitutional because the order of the District Judge upon the application has been made final by Sec. 48 (2) of the Act and there is no right of appeal to the aggrieved party from the decision of the District Judge to any higher authority.

When the reference was heard in this Court, Mr. C.P. Das on behalf of the opposite party supported the view taken by the learned Additional District Judge and contended that the provisions of Sec. 48 of the Act are ultra vires for the reason that no right of appeal is provided against the order of the District Judge to any higher judicial authority. In our opinion, the opinion expressed by the learned Additional District Judge is erroneous, and the provisions of Section 48 of Bihar Act 1 of 1951 must be held to be constitutionally valid and operative.

It is true that no right of appeal is provided from the order of the District Judge made under Sec. 48 (1) on the application of the Board or with the previous sanction of the Board by any person interested in a religious trust. The mere fact that the Act does not provide a right of appeal to an aggrieved party is not sufficient to show that from a procedural point of view there is an unreasonable restriction imposed on the fundamental right of the trustee of a religious trust under Article 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution.

The reason is that the power of removing a trustee or appointing a new trustee under Sec. 48 (1) of the Act is conferred upon a high judicial officer of the status of a District Judge and not upon any executive authority. It is also to be noticed that the power of removing a trustee conferred by Sec. 48 (1) is not an unrestricted and; unfettered power.

The statute specifies the circumstances in which the power of removal should be exercised by the District Judge. For instance, Sec. 48 (1) (a) provides that the power of removal may be exercised if a trustee acts in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the said trust, or defaults on three or more occasions in the payment of any amount payable under any law for the time being in force in respect of the property of the trust or any other statutory charge on such property.

It is manifest, therefore, that the statute contains the principle on which the power of removal of the trustee can be exercised, and, as we have already said, the power is to be exerciesd by an officer of the rank of a District Judge. We, therefore, hold that in the context of the object and purpose of the