JUDGMENT :

CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, J.

Section 28(2)(u) of Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) confers jurisdiction upon Bihar State Board of Religious Trust (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Board’) to decide all disputes whether any religious trust is a public trust or a private trust, in terms of the definition under Section 2(l) of the Act. Section 2(l) of the Act defines ‘religious trust’ as under :-

“2(l) “religious trust” means [and shall be deemed always to mean] any express or constructive trust created or existing for any purpose recognised by Hindu Law to be religious, pious or charitable, but shall not include a trust created according to the Sikh religion or purely for the benefit of the Sikh community and a private endowment created for the worship of a family idol in which public are not interest [and where public offerings and donations are not received].”

2. The dispute in the present matter relates to a temple of Shri Thakur Jee and Mahabir Jee in village Mojari in the district of Rohtas. The dispute as to whether the said Trust is a private or public is pending adjudication before the Board. It appears from an order of this Court dated 24.07.2009, passed in CWJC No. 4959 of 2009 that by an order dated 04.03.2009 the Administrator-cum-Officer on Special Duty of the Board had declared the said Trust to be a public trust after having seen the records, rejecting the petitioner’s claim that it was a private trust. This Court, however, set aside the said order dated 04.03.2009, by an order dated 24.07.2009, passed in CWJC No. 4959 of 2009 filed by the petitioner with the following observations :-

“The Court after perusing the records and hearing the parties is in agreement with learned counsel for the petitioner to the extent that if the final adjudication with regard to status of the property is yet to be made then it is needless to say that the order dated 04.03.2009 passed by the administrator cannot be allowed to be sustained. To that extent the petitioner has succeeded in making out the case for interference. The order dated 04.03.2009 contained in Annexure-5 therefore stands quashed. It is left open to the parties to the dispute that they shall establish their claims before the administrator under the so called exercise of power under section 28(2)(u) of the Act. Future course of action will be dependent upon the adjudication made in this regard.”

3. It further appears that the petitioner had assailed another order dated 06.07.2011, passed by the Board arising out of the same proceeding under Section 28(1)(u) of the Act before this Court by filing a writ petition giving rise to CWJC No. 13175 of 2011. By the said order dated 06.07.2011 the parties were directed to submit their oral as also their written statement on affidavit, if so desired, which would be considered, considering the fact that the proceeding was pending since long for adjudication as to whether the Trust was a private or public trust. The parties were also directed by the said order dated 06.07.2011 to exchange their respective pleadings. This Court dismissed the said writ petition by an order dated 03.07.2012, operative portion of which reads as under :-

“Upon considering the rival submissions of the parties and on perusal of the order dated 06.07.2011 as contained in Annexure-22, it appears that the authority had allowed opportunity to both the parties to file their oral evidence as also the written argument, if so desired, so that the proceedings could be disposed of without delay. It do not find any error in the order. As regards that the authority has no power to adjudicate the proceedings such objection was not taken before the authority.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, as taken note above, I do not find any merit in this application, the same is accordingly, dismissed.”

4. The petitioner in the present writ application has challenged an order dated 05.01.2015, passed by the Board in t