JUDGMENT :

CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, J.

1. This matter has been taken up for hearing online because of COVID-19 pandemic restrictions.

2. This writ application, in original form, was filed seeking the following reliefs:-

“1. That the petitioner prays for the following reliefs :-

(I) That an appropriate writ may be issued quashing the notification no. 961 dated 25.09.2019 as contained in Annexure-11 whereby and whereunder the Respondent no.3, the learned Chairman has framed a scheme and appointed 11 members managing committee of Bhatuara Math, published in Gazette dated 03.02.2002 as contained in Annexure 12.

(ii) That an appropriate writ may be issued commanding upon the respondent no.3 not interfere with the management of the trust in question without removing the petitioner from the post of trustee after following due procedure.

(iii) That an appropriate writ may be issued commanding upon the respondent no.2, not to proceed with handing over the charge to the managing committee during the pendency with application.

(iv) Any other reliefs for which the petitioner is found entitled to under the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. During the pendency of the writ petition, the President of the Bihar State Board of Religious Trust (for short 'the Board') issued an amended notification on 04.09.2021 framing Scheme under Section 32 of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act, 1950 (for short 'the Act') for the said Bhatuara Math. The said notification dated 04.09.2021 is sought to be challenged in the present writ application by seeking amendment by way of Interlocutory Application No. 1 of 2021.

4. Ms. Mahasweta Chatterjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that she would confine her submission to the legality of the said notification dated 04.09.2021, which, according to her, is unauthorized and illegal. Considering the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner and the pleadings on record, I. A. No. 1 of 2021 is allowed. The petitioner has, thus, been permitted to question the legality of the impugned notification dated 04.09.2021.

5. Raising a preliminary objection, Mr. Ganpati Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Board has submitted that subsection (3) of Section 32 of the Act provides for a statutory remedy to a trustee or any other person interested in such trust to make an application to the District Judge for varying, modifying or setting aside the scheme framed under Section 32 of the Act. He would accordingly contend that since the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy of appeal, which is more efficacious, this writ application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not be entertained as no exceptional circumstance exists for this Court's interference, despite there being alternative remedy available.

6. Ms. Mahasweta Chatterjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however, submits that since the impugned notification dated 04.09.2021 issued by the President of the Board is per se illegal given clear language of Section 32 of the Act, this Court exercising power of judicial review should entertain this writ application, the impugned notification being void ab initio. She contends that under Section 32 of the Act, the power to frame scheme vests in the Board and not the President and, therefore, the impugned order is completely unauthorized and illegal.

7. In response to the said submission made on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Ganpati Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel for the Board has drawn our attention to Clause (r) of bye-law 43 of the Religious Trust Board's Bye-Laws made under Section 83 of the Act to contend that the President of the Board has been given the power to settle schemes for the proper administration of a religious trust. He has accordingly submitted that the impugned notification dated 04.09.2021 cannot be said to be unauthorized and beyond jurisdiction. In response to the said submission of Mr. Trivedi, Ms