JUDGMENT

Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Bihar State Board of Religious Trusts (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board').

2. The present Interlocutory Application has been filed seeking amendment in the main writ application by adding a further relief seeking quashing of order contained in Memo No. 2848 dated 02.02.2017 of the Administrator of the Board by which the petitioner has been removed from the post of trustee of Shri Ram Janki Mandir, Goraiya Kothi in the district of Siwan.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the original writ petition has been filed to quash the notification no. 3292 dated 25.03.2017 passed by the Administrator of the Board by which a new Trust Committee was constituted. It was submitted that the petitioner was never appointed as trustee by the Board and no trust was ever formed by the Board since 1985. It was submitted that though as the Board has not declared it to be a public trust under Section 28(u) of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), the Board does not have the jurisdiction either to remove the petitioner or to constitute a fresh committee.

4. It was submitted that before registration, enquiry is mandatory, which has not been done in the present case. Learned counsel referred to the decision of a Division Bench in Bishwa Nath Sah v. State of Bihar, (2003) 2 PLJR 743 for the proposition that without serving notice, decision to declare the trust as a public trust cannot be sustained. He further relied upon a judgment in Pavitra Kuer Thakur Ram Jayaswal v. State of Bihar, (2002) 4 PLJR 578 for the proposition that the Board cannot assume jurisdiction over the property and go into dispute between private parties about title/ownership, and further, that there has to be enquiry even if the property is of religious trust before exercising power under Section 32 of the Act, which in the present case has not been done. He further relied upon the unreported judgment of a co-ordinate Bench in Daymanti Devi vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (CWJC No. 5657 of 1990) dated 10.11.2008 for the proposition that in terms of Section 43 of the Act adjudication is required before declaring it to be a public trust, which in the present case has also not been done. It was submitted that no documents with regard to registration, application and enquiry have been brought on record and the decision thereafter. He also relied upon an unreported decision of a Co-ordinate Bench in Ram Gopal Das Chela vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (CWJC No. 1509 of 2010) dated 25.04.2011 for the proposition that the statutory requirement under Section 28 (2) (u) of the Act has not been followed. It was further submitted that there has been no consideration of the show cause of the petitioner by the Board which is against the principles of natural justice. It was further contended that the same is a malicious prosecution at the instance of the local MLA.

5. Learned counsel for the Board submitted that the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner are not tenable. It was submitted that right from the year 1959, the local villagers as well as the family members had made a complaint to the Board with regard to mismanagement of running of the temple. In support thereof, he drew the attention of the Court to copies of such complaint. It was submitted that even in the revenue records, the entire property is recorded in the name of the deity and not of the petitioner, which clearly negates the claim that the property is the private property of the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that the Board finally issued notice to the petitioner on 28.10.2016, and the reply was not found satisfactory. He submitted that a report was also called on the basis of complaint made by a member of the Legislative Assembly and finally the Administrator of the Board under Letter No. 2848 dated 02.02.2017 under Section 28 (2) (j) (iii) (