Rajesh Kumar Verma, J.—Heard Mr. Kumar Shanu, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ganpati Trivedi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 1 and Mr. Kumar Mirtunjay, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 3.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs;—

“i. To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash/set aside the order dated 05.06.2021 passed by the President of the Bihar Board of Religious Trust Patna (hereinafter referred to as Board) whereby and where under the learned President without providing any opportunity to the petitioner passed the impugned order behind its back and appointed Sri Mahendra Das as trustee of the Sri Ram Janki Hanuman Mandir, Sheikhpura Math, Bailey Road, Patna as contained in Memo No. 481 dated 05.06.2021.

ii. To issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents particularly respondent no. 2 from interfering the management of the Sri Ram Janki Hanuman Mandir, Sheikhpura Math, Bailey Road, Patna.

iii. To pass any other, writ or writs, order or orders, direction or directions for which the petitioner is entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner has challenged the order dated 05.06.2021 passed by respondent no. 2 whereby the respondent no. 3 has been recognized as a Mahant of Sri Ram Janki Hanuman Mandir, Sheikhpura Math, Bailey Road, Patna.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that from perusal of the impugned order issued by respondent no. 2 is void ab initio and without jurisdiction inasmuch as under Section 48 of the Bihar State Religious Trust Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the “Trust Act”), the District Judge is competent to appoint trustee. As per Section 33 of the Trust Act, Board can appoint only temporary trustee for the period of one year under certain condition but even the statutory conditions have not been followed at the time of passing of the impugned order in the present case.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from perusal of the impugned order it appears that the previous Mahant, Sri Ramgopal Das had died about 11 years back i.e. on 09.12.2011 but the respondent no. 3 has been appointed on the basis of request made by him in February , 2021 for his appointment as trustee. He further submits that after the death of the previous Mahant in the year 2011, Sri Ram Janki Hanuman Mandir, Sheikhpura Math, Bailey Road, Patna was being managed and controlled by the petitioner but at the time of passing of the impugned order the petitioner was not given any notice and the present impugned order has been passed in violation of principle of natural justice. Even before 2011, the Ram Janki Mandir was being managed and controlled by the petitioner through the Trust Committee.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from perusal of the impugned order dated 05.06.2021 (Annexure-1), it appears that the respondent no. 1 had not given any information about the passing of the order in favour of the respondent no. 3 to the petitioner. And while passing the impugned order dated 05.06.2021 the respondent no. 1 had not given any opportunity to the petitioner to submit his reply on the application filed by the respondent no. 3 and while passing the impugned order the respondent no. 1 has ignored the fact that the petitioner had filed the Case No. 09 of 2009 in the Court of Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Tribunal, Patna, under Section 43B of the Act after due permission of the Board. Sri Gopal Das challenged the maintainability of the application and the matter travelled up to L.P.A. Bench of Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 0110.2012 passed in L.P.A. No. 1406 of 2012 remanded the matter before the tribunal clearly stipulating that the nature of the Trust properties or individual property shall be governed by the decision of the tribunal where the matter is said to be pending. It appears that the or