The principles of natural justice require that a person should be given an opportunity to be heard before a decision is taken that affects their rights.

S.ALI AHMAD, J.

1. The two petitioners were members for the Managing Committee of Mahabir Asthan Mandir, which is, perhaps, the most popular in the city of Patna. By an office order No. 3702 dated 20-10-1987 issued by respondent No. 2, Bihar Rajya Hindu Religious Trust Board, the Managing Committee of the Mandir was dissolved and a new Committee was constituted to look after the affairs of Mahabir Asthan. A copy of the order has been appended as Annexure-1 which was sought to be quashed when the writ application was filed. During the pendency of this application, a supplementary affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondents annexing Notification dated 16-3-1990 issued by respondent No. 2, the Board, stating the fact that a trust committee has been formed by it by reconstituting Shri Mahabir Asthan Trust Committee. The Committee so formed consisted of 11 persons. In these circumstances, the petitioners filed an application with a prayer to quash the Notification dated 16-3-1990 reconstituting the Managing Committee of Shri Mahabir Asthan Trust Committee (Annexure-9) also. Further a prayer was made to implead the new members of the committee as party-respondents to the writ application. The prayer was allowed by this Court on 16-8-1990.

2. According to the petitioners, there were 11 members of Shri Mahabir Mandir Trust Committee, including the two petitioners. Notices were issued to all the 11 members of the Trust Committee asking them as to why the dues amounting to Rs. 5921.74 paise was not deposited in the office of the Bihar Religious Trust Board. The members were, therefore, asked to show cause by 20/07/1987 as to why another committee be not constituted after dissolving the present committee for better management of the Trust. A copy of this notification has been marked as Annexure-2. Annexure-3 is the reply dated 20-7-1987 sent by the Managing Committee of the Mandir to respondent No. 2 stating therein that Rs. 3484.80 paise has already been deposited with the Boarder-vide Receipt No. 2461 dated 27-6-1987. It was also said that this amount was paid as fee on the basis of the audit report and that it was prepared to pay any further amount if found due on the basis of any other audit report. In the circumstance, a request was made to inform the committee of any outstanding dues so that the same could be deposited. The show cause also made a request to grant one months time to file another show cause with regard to the reconstitution of a fresh Managing Committee after dissolving the existing one for better management of the Trust. The grievance of the petitioners is that without considering the reply of the Managing Committee as contained in Annexure 3, respondent No. 2 constituted a new committee as contained in Annexure 1 after dissolving the existing committee. It is also said by the petitioners that sometime back the dispute with regard to the constitution of the Managing Committee was considered by this Court in Misc. Appeal No. 428 of 1956. That appeal was disposed of on the basis of a compromise petition filed by the parties to the appeal. According to that compromise, it is said that the Board had agreed not to interfere with the management of the temple and its properties by the Committee.

3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 2, the Board, which, inter alia, states that the erstwhile managing committee was dissolved and a new committee was constituted for better management of the temple and its properties. Further it was said that show cause notice contained two parts; in the first Part, the members were asked to show cause for non-payment of fee to the Board while in the second part they were asked to show cause as to why the erstwhile committee should not be dissolved for proper and better management of the Trust. The fact that a reply was sent by the members of the erstwhile committee on 20-7-1987 was accepted but it is said that the reply was confined to the non-submissio