IMPORTANT POINT
The President of the Trust Board exceeded his jurisdiction by flouting the court's previous order, leading to the quashing of the order directing submission of financial details.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Alok Kumar Choudhary, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ganpati Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the order dated 26.09.2022 (Annexure 6) passed by the President, Bihar State Board of Religious Trusts, Patna by which the petitioner has been directed to submit the details of income and expenditure account and bank account for the last five years to it.

3. The case has chequered history. In the Court of Authority under section 43 of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act, 1950 (henceforth for short ‘the Trust’), a case no. 35 of 1963 was registered in which the President of ‘the Trust’ was the petitioner while the present petitioner herein was the opposite party.

4. The prayer was to declare that the public temple situated in Belwarganj under Gulzarbagh Police Station in the District of Patna is a Public Trust.

5. After hearing both the sides on 19.09.1964, the following order was passed:-

“On a consideration of the evidence on the record and the circumstances of the case I hold that the petitioner has failed to prove that the temple in question is a public temple rather the circumstances go to show that it is a private temple of the opposite party. The petition is accordingly rejected but the parties will bear their own costs.”

6. Aggrieved, the Religious Trust Board preferred Title Suit No. 130 of 1964/54 of 1970 which was taken up by the Court of learned Additional Sub Judge II, Patna and vide an order dated 30.08.1974, the learned Court allowed the said suit holding the same to be a Public Trust property and the concluding part is incorporated hereinbelow:-

“Thus let the suit be decreed on compensation with Advocates and Advocate’s Clerk fee Rs. 32/-and Rs. 5/-respectively is allowed. It is hereby declared that the temples in suit and the properties attached to it are Hindu Religious Public Trust property and as such the order passed by the authority under section 43 of the Act is illegal and the same is not binding on the plaintiffs and consequently the same is set aside.”

7. It was now the turn of the petitioner herein to move before the Patna High Court in First Appeal No. 633 of 1974 which was taken up by a co-ordinate bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mungeshwar Sahoo, as his Lordships then was) and vide an order dated 14.12.2016, the First Appeal was allowed and paragraphs 20 and 21 are incorporated hereinbelow:-

“20. In view of my above discussion, I find that the plaintiff failed to prove that that the temple and its properties endowed are the public trust. On the other hand the defendant appellant has been able to prove that the temple in question is private temple and deity installed in private deity of appellants family from the very inception and it is still the family idol and the properties attached thereto are of the properties of the idol of the appellant. The finding of the trial Court on this point is, therefore, reversed. The authority has therefore, passed the order according to law under Section 43 of the Religious Trust Act. Ultimately, I find that the temple in question is not a public trust rather it is private trust of the appellant.

21. In the result, this First Appeal is allowed. The impugned Judgment and Decree are hereby set aside and the plaintiff respondent's suit is dismissed.”

8. The aforesaid details have been incorporated in the order only to show that the dusts were settled in the matter as according to the petitioner, ‘the Trust’ never preferred any petition against the said order which thus became final.

9. However, ‘the Trust’ was not ready to lose the battle and in came the order dated 26.09.2022 issued by the President of ‘the Trust’ by which he has directed the petitioner to submit the details of income and expenditure account as also bank account from the last five years.

10. On 18.04.2023, an earlier bench of this Court while directing ‘the Trust’ to file counter affidavit had given