1. These writ petitions involving common question of fact and law were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. In C.W.J.C. No. 4616 of 1987, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing of the order dated 14-9-1987 and 28-9-1987 and as contained in Annexures-6 and 7 to the writ petition.

3. In C.W.J.C. No. 452 of 1988, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 13-10-1987 passed by the respondent. No. 2 and as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ petition.

4. In C.W.J.C. No. 5805 of 1987, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents, their agents or servants not to interfere with the right, title, interest and possession of the petitioner over the building of the petitioner situated in Narkatiaganj over plot No. 4 Khasra No. 654 measuring 1 Katha and 1 Dhur (10 decimals).

5. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass.

6. The petitioner is the trustee in respect of a Dharamsala known as Satyanarain Bhagwan temple and Dharamsala, Narkatiaganj and Babu Sundermal Dharamshala, Bettiah, District West Champaran. The aforementioned trust was created by the grandfather of the petitioner on 6-1-1946, by executing a deed of gift in favour of aforementioned temple and Dharamshala. In the said deed of gift, provisions have been made as to how and in what manner the temple and the Dharamshala are to be managed. In terms of the aforementioned deed of gift, in a meeting held by the Trustees, the petitioner was put in charge for managing the properties of the aforementioned trust. It appears that some disputes arose by and between the trustees and the ex-priest of the temple. The petitioner came to learn that the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 purporting to act on the basis of a report submitted by respondent No.3, the S.D.O., Bagaha was appointed as a temporary trustee vide order dated 23-7-1987. A copy of the said order has been annexed to the writ petition and marked as Annexure-2 thereto. The petitioner thereafter filed various representations, whereupon the respondent No.2 by an order dated 27-8-1987 stayed the operation of the said order dated 23-7-1987. The said order dated 27-8-1987 is contained in Annex. 5 to the writ petition. According to the petitioner, however, the respondent No.2 without hearing the petitioner and perusing the documents regarding the temple and Dharamshala again passed an order on 14-9 1987 appointing temporary trustee in relation to the aforementioned temple and Dharamshala contrary to its previous order dated 27-8-1987. The said order is contained in Annexure-6 to the writ petition.

7. According to the petitioner if there had been mis-management in the property in question, recourse could be taken to the deed of gift which in very clear terms contains provisions as to what steps should be taken in case such mis-management is detected.

8. In C.W.J.C. No. 452 of 1988 a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

9. It appears that the said counter-affidavit is absolutely a cryptic one but it refers to a purported application for vacating an interim order of stay filed on behalf of the respondents.

10. According to the said counter-affidavit all trustees appointed by the donor and named in the original deed of trust have expired except the writ petitioner and one Keshari Lal Jhunjhunwala. The respondents in paragraph 11 of their applications for vacating the stay order have further contended that several notices were issued to the petitioner. However, the said notices have not been brought on record.

11. Mr. N.K. Agarwal, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 4616 of 1987 and in C.W.J.C. No.452 of 1988 raised a very short question.

12. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner the impugned or order does not satisfy the requirement of S.33 of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust