The main legal point established is the finality of the Board's decision on whether a trust is public or private, and the right of the aggrieved party to challenge the decision in a Civil Court.

JUDGMENT :

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.

1. Heard Mr. R.K.P. Singh, assisted by Mr. Mukesh Kant, the learned Advocates for the appellant and Mr. Ganpati Trivedi, Senior Advocate for the respondent/Bihar State Hindu Religious Trust Board.

2. The State is represented by Mr. Gyan Prakash Ojha (GP-7).

3. The judgment under challenge has been delivered on 04.02.2020 in C.W.J.C. No. 15159 of 2019.

4. The appellant had initially filed the writ petition for quashing the Notification No. 3292 dated 25.03.2017 passed by the Administrator of Bihar State Hindu Religious Trust Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) by which a new Trust Committee was constituted. Later, the prayer was permitted to be amended for challenging the Letter No. 2848 dated 02.02.2017 passed by the Administrator of the Board, by which the petitioner was removed from the position of Trustee of Sri Ram Janki Temple, Goriakothi, Siwan.

5. The argument advanced on behalf of the appellant is that the Board assumed jurisdiction over the private Trust of the appellant, which authority the Board never possessed. The only reason for the Board to interfere with the functions of the private Trust is perhaps a complaint, first of all made in the year 1959 and, thereafter, repetatively against the nominated Mahantand his chellas, who succeeded the main Mahant in succeeding years and a complaint by a political adversary in managing to raise a question in the Bihar Legislative Assembly.

6. It was, thus, argued that unless an enquiry is made under Section 28 of the Bihar State Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter-referred to as the Act), no jurisdiction is extended to the Board for administrating such trust. It has further been submitted that merely on the complaint, a private Trust cannot be interfered with.

7. The contentions of the appellant was repelled by the Board primarily on two grounds.

8. It was submitted by Mr. Ganpati Trivedi, that in the register of the Board, it has been declared that the Trust was registered with the Board in the year 1985 with the Registration No. 2943. It has further been contended that an enquiry had been conducted with respect to the Trust being a private or public and only after it was found from the local persons and other documents sans the letter of dedication that it was a public religious trust and the temple having been opened to general public for offering prayers, the Board took a decision to register the same with it, requiring management of the Trust to furnish accounts and maintain the Trust property without alienating any part of it for any other purpose.

9. A detailed enquiry was shown by the Board to have been made prior to its registration in the year 1985 and, thereafter, with respect to its finding that the Trust was being mismanaged. The evidence which could be garnered with respect to mismanagement was sale of Trust property by Mahants of which specific instances were provided during the enquiry and construction of shops which fetched huge amount as rental, which was never used for the upkeep of the temple, but was appropriated by the appellant.

10. Considering this aspect of the matter and finding the response of the appellant to be unconvincing to the show-cause notice issued to him along with the instances of illegal sale of the Trust property, the Board took a decision of disbanding the Committee, which was challenged by the appellant in the writ petition referred to above.

11. Mr. Trivedi further contends that against the aforesaid order of disbanding the Committee, there is a provision of an appeal against such order before the District Judge of the District for varying, modifying or setting-aside of such order.

12. Before disbanding the Committee, the appellant was also removed from the position of Trustee and the Trust was handed-over to a local officer; (however, the charge has yet not been handed-over) for the needful.

13. This order also was assailable under Section 28 Sub-Clause (3) of the Act before the District Judge.