HARI LAL AGRAWAL, J.

1. The petitioner has filed this writ application for quashing the order contained in the letter dated 21-5-1983 (Annexure 1) issued by the Government of Bihar in the Education Department, communicating to him that the Shrimati Radhika Sinha Institute and Sachchidanand Sinha. Library (for short the Institute and Library respectively) having been acquired and vested in the State of Bihar, the petitioner ceased to be the Honorary Secretary of this institution. A further relief in the nature of permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the rights of the trustees of the said institution, has also been prayed.

2. The relevant facts are as follows. The Institute and the Library were established by the late Dr. Sachchidanand Sinha by a deed of trust dated 10-3-1926, and are popularly known as Sinha Library. The petitioner is the Honarary Secretary of the said trust. The State Government promulgated an Ordinance, namely, Shrimati Radhika Sinha Institute and Sachchidanand Sinha Library (Acquisition and Management) Ordinance, 1983 (Bihar Ordinance No. 14 of 1983). Undisputedly this Ordinance lapsed on the 14th of Aug. 1983, but before the lapse of this Ordinance, the second Ordinance dated the 12th August, 1983 was repromulgated containing a saving clause ratifying and validating all the actions taken and orders passed under the previous Ordinance. The second Ordinance, however, also lapsed before the hearing of this writ application was taken up, but the impugned letter/notice (Annexure 1) had already been issued to the petitioner on 21-5-1983. On 28-6-1983 the "operation of the Ordinance" was ordered to "remain stayed" by this Court while admitting the application.

3. No counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, but the argument of the learned Additional Advocate General; on the other hand, was that although the Ordinance had expired, its effect was enduring and everlasting even after the expiry.

4. When the case was taken up for hearing, Mr. Basudeva Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, advanced the argument that with the lapse of the Ordinances which were temporary in nature, under normal rule, all the effects and consequences of the Ordinances automatically came to an end as they did not contain any special provision to the contrary, and, therefore, the impugned notices contained in Annexures 1 and 3 could not be enforced.

5. The main and the only question, therefore, that has to be considered in this case is the effect of the lapse/expiry of the Ordinances on the question of takeover of the Institute and the Library. In order to answer the question, the scheme and intention of the Ordinance have to be examined. Sec.3 of the Ordinance (which is in Hindi), inter alia, deals with the takeover of the management and lays down as follows :

Section 4 contemplates the consequences of the vesting and reads as follows:-

It is under these circumstances that the Deputy Secretary to the State Government wrote the impugned letter (Annexure 1) informing the petitioner that he had ceased to remain the Honorary Secretary of the Institution from the afternoon of the 21st May, 1983. To the same effect is another letter (Annexure 3). In both the letters it was categorically stated that the acquisition of the Institute and the Library had already been done by the Government in terms of the Ordinance. Annexure 3 further stated that the Board of Trustees had stood resolved in view of the provisions contained in Sec. 4 of the Ordinance and the Superintendent of Libraries, Bihar, was directed to seal the office of the petitioner immediately.

6 Reliance has been placed on behalf of the petitioner on the following authorities in support of the contention indicated earlier. Trust Mai Lachhmi Sialkoti Bradari V/s. Chairman, Amritsar Improvement Trust (AIR 1963 SC 976) and S. Krishnan V/s. State of Madras (AIR 1951 SC 301). At page 409 of Craies on Statute Law (7th edition) i