The issue of whether a trust is a private trust or a public trust must be decided in an appropriate proceeding, and the notices issued by the Board were found to be within its jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH, J.

Heard Ms. Mahasweta Chatterjee, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ganpati Trivedi, learned senior counsel for the Bihar State Board of Religious Trust (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Board’) and perused the writ petition as well as the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3.

2. In the present application, the petitioner has assailed the show cause notices issued by respondent no.2 dated 16.09.2019 and 24.09.2019 by which the petitioner has been directed to appear before the Board and produce the relevant documents with regard to the trust (Raipur Math) in question. Subsequently, by filing an interlocutory application, the petitioner has also challenged the entire proceedings pending before the Board in respect of the aforesaid trust.

3. Ms. Mahasweta Chatterjee, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Raipur Math is situated in Raipur village of District-Samastipur. It is a very old Math. The petitioner is chela of Mahanth Baliram Das, who was the chela of Narayan Das and the Guru of Narayan Das was Awadh Bihari Das who was the chela of Mahanth Raghunandan Das. The management in question was always done of Mahanth and the Math is not registered with the Board. The Guru of the petitioner was murdered on 28.12.1992. Thereafter, the petitioner being his only chela performed his last rites and also performed Shradh and Bhandara on 08.01.1993. After the Shradh ceremony, as per tradition, there was a meeting on 08.01.1993 and it was recorded that the petitioner has been appointed as the Mahanth of the Math. Subsequently, by an order dated 13.01.1993, that is, only after four days, the petitioner was appointed as Mahanth of the Math in question. The Board appointed the Sub Divisional Officer, Dalsinghsarai as the temporary trustee of the Math in question under Section 33 of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and also requested the Sub Divisional Officer to take charge of the Math in question. After the order dated 13.01.1993 was passed, when the petitioner came to know about the appointment of temporary trustee, he filed petition before the Board communicating about his appointment as Mahanth on 08.01.1993. One Ramadhar Das also filed a petition before the Board claiming himself to be the chela of Mahanth Narayan Das and Guru Bhai of Mahanth Baliram Das and also claiming that after the death of Mahanth Baliram Das, he has been appointed as Mahanth by way of giving him Chadar and Pagari. The Board considering the claims of the petitioner and Ramadhar Das and after hearing both the parties, vide order dated 21.05.1994 dismissed the claim of the petitioner and declared Ramadhar Das as Mahanth of the Math in question.

4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a writ petition vide C.W.J.C. No.6081 of 1994 before this Court for setting aside the order passed by the Board dated 21.05.1994 by which Ramadhar Das was appointed as the Mahanth of the Math in question. In the said writ petition, vide order dated 15.05.1998, the application was allowed and the order dated 21.05.1994 was set aside. This Court in the writ application held that Ramadhar Das was never appointed as trustee at any point of time after the death of Mahanth Baliram Das and the finding arrived at by the Board was held to be perverse.

5. Ms. Chatterjee argued that after the disposal of C.W.J.C. No.6081 of 1994, the matter had attained finality and the petitioner was treated as Mahanth of the Math in question. She contended that under such circumstance, the issuance of show cause notices by the Board for deciding the nature of the trust is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. She submitted that Section 28(2)(u) of the Act would have no application in the present matter as there is no pending dispute regarding the nature of the trust.

6. In reply, Mr. Ganpati Trivedi, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 submitted that the contention adv