The main legal point established is that the petitioners have the liberty to approach the competent court to challenge the resolution declaring the subject trust as a public trust.

1. The appeal suffers from delay of eightyeight days. For condonation of delay, the present application has been made. The cause has been set out thus:

"5. That as soon as the order impugned dated 4.4.06 was passed allowing the writ application treating the Trust as private trust and not the public trust as decided by the appellant, there was none to take such a vital decision to challenge the same under LP.A. even after knowing and judging that the order passed by the Hon ble Single Judge was erroneous, bad in law, without jurisdiction and against the law, settled by our own High Court time and again.

6. That on 23.5.2006 the State Government was pleased to appoint an Administrator-cum-O.S.D under Section 8A, inserted in the Act by Amendment Act 21 of 1992.

7. That after the joining of the learned Administrator-cum-O.S.D. on 23.5.06, the file was put up before him.

8. That on 12.6.2006, the learned Administrator was pleased to direct the office to take step for filing the L.P.A.

9. That the memorandum of appeal after being prepared by the learned Standing Counsel for the Appellant- Board sent to the office of the Board immediately on 19.6.2006.

10. That the Learned Administrator upon perusal of the Memorandum of Appeal called for a judgment reported in 1968 B.L.J.R. 197 (Mundrika Kuer vs. Board) decided by the Division Bench of this Hon ble Court passed in C.W.J.C. No. 650/1967 and once again directed to proceed in the matter.

11. That the record alongwith the Memorandum of Appeal was again sent to the office of learned Standing Counsel for the Board on 22.7.2006 (Saturday).

12. That on 25.7.2006, a letter was sent to the Superintendent to Board his comment and instruction upon the delay caused for filing the condonation application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the Appeal.

13. That it is stated that in the interest of Justice and for the judicious opinion from the learned Advocate General, Bihar, the learned Advocate General was consulted with regard to filing the instant L.P.A. against the impugned order dated 4.4.2006 and after that the record were sent on 22.7.2006 for filing the L.P.A. before this Hon ble Court."

2. The aforesaid facts have not been traversed by the respondents.

3. Upon careful consideration of the averments aforenoticed, we are satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause in filing the appeal in time.

4. We, accordingly, condone the delay in filing the appeal.

5. We heard the counsel for the appellant and the respondents in appeal.

6. The present respondents (hereinafter referred to as the petitioners) filed the writ petition before this court challenging the resolution dated 7th August, 2004 passed by the Bihar State Board of Religious Trust (appellant herein and to be referred hereinafter as the Religious Trust Board) whereby the subject trust has been declared public trust. The petitioners also prayed for quashing the notice dated 17th February, 2005 issued by the Religious Trust Board for initiating penal action against the trustees under Section 28(2)(h) and Section 32 of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950 (for short, Act, 1950) for non-compliance of the resolution dated 7th August, 2004.

7. In challenging the resolution dated 7th August, 2004 and the notice dated 17lh May, 2005, the principal ground that has been set up by the petitioners is that the trust is a private endowment which was created by Raghunath Das for his family idol and ancestral temple situated at Naya Bazar (Mahajan Toli), Bhagalpur. It was also stated that the trustees of the trust are the legal heirs, successors and representatives of the original endower Late Raghunath Das.

8. From perusal of the order passed by the Single Judge, however, it appears that it was submitted by the petitioners before the Single Judge that there was dispute appertaining to immovable properties belonging to religious trust and that can only be decided by the authority ment