The main legal point established is that the Trust Board must establish the property in dispute as a religious trust property before assuming jurisdiction, and must follow proper procedures including enquiry, opportunity of hearing, and recording of findings.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners seek to challenge correctness, validity and propriety of letter dated 8-1-2002 as contained in Annexure-2.

2. The brief facts leading to the present controversy in nutshell are that certain properties were purchased by the erstwhile owners under Annexure-D for raising and constructing a Dharamshala (INN). It appears that a private trust was created for managing the said property and with the passage of time the different members in the family started putting their claims over the management and the property. It also appears that the charitable cause of the public trust in fact became a cause between the different branches as each of them was interested in the earnings and the value of the property. One of the co-owners/trustees under his application dated 23-3-1998 submitted to the President, Religious trust board that under a particular document the property was purchased; a Dharamshala was constructed. It was used by the passengers and some of the trustees were mismanaging the property and in fact were misusing the earnings of the said property. He further submitted in his complaint (Annexure-A) that name of Dharamshala was changed and it was named as an Athitishala Bhawan. He submitted to the president that in accordance with pious wishes of his ancestors, he wanted to run the Dharamshala to serve the public and if he was so appointed by the present religious Trust Board, he would manage the property properly. It appears that on 20-6-1998 Assistant Superintendent issued a notice to the complainant Sonelal Jaiswal asking him to submit documents to substantiate his claim. On 22-6-1998 a letter was issued by the said Assistant Superintendent to Gopal Prasad Jaiswal, Madhu Prasad Jaiswal and Pradip Kumar Jaiswal, inter alia, asking them that documents in relation to the said Dharmshala be submitted before the Court on 10-7-1998 along with the accounts for the period between 1951-52 to 1997-98 and also budget for the year 1998-99. It was also made clear that if the order is not observed, action under the provisions of Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act would be taken. It appears that before issuing the said letter dated 22-6-1998 no show cause notice was ever issued to appoint a temporary trustee. By order dated 23-6-1999 the said appointment was kept in abeyance. Thereafter on 8-1-2002 a notice was issued requiring them to submit their replies as is the trust was a public trust. The petitioners are aggrieved by the document (Annexure-2) i.e. letter dated 8-1-2002. According to the petitioners, the property in dispute is a private trust. It is not a religious or public trust. Their further submission is that in a dispute between trustees of a private/personal trust, the trust board of the Religious Trust has no jurisdiction to interfere or assume jurisdiction simply on a false and frivolous complaint. It is also their contention that the trust board cannot exercise its powers in arbitrary and whimsical manner nor it can intimidate the trustees of the private trust by illegally exercising its power which under the statute it does not possess. According to them unless the Religious trust board records a finding that a property in dispute is a religious trust, the Board has no authority to issue such intimidating or threatening letters. According to them if the trust board is of the opinion that it is required to make an enquiry then it must, hold an enquiry giving proper opportunity of hearing and leading evidence to the affected persons and after recording a finding that the property in dispute is a religious trust, the respondent can exercise his jurisdiction. In reply to the allegations and submissions made by the petitioners, the respondent Board through its counsel has submitted that on 22-6-1998 a show cause notice was issued and at the request of the petitioners, appointment of temporary trustee was ke