The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for orders to be reasoned, supported by evidence, and compliant with legal directions, failing which they may be quashed.

By Court - The petitioner has challenged the letter issued by the Chairman of Bihar State Board of Religious Trust vide Memo no.662 dated 11th July, 1998, whereby Baranwal Seva Sadan Dharamshala, Doghar has been declared as Hindu Religious Public Trust, appointing the Sub Divisional Officer, Deoghar as provisional trustee for the time being and to take charge of the affairs of the Dharamshala.

2. According to the petitioner, the impugned order is wholly arbitrary, nonspeaking and laconic and the same has not been passed in accordance with the direction issued by order dated 9th February, 1998 passed in CWJC No.7519 of 1996 by the Patna High Court, as then was.

3. Mr. V. Shivnath, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that by order dated 9th February, 1998 passed in CWJC No.7519 of 1996, the petitioner was directed to furnish all the relevant documents required by the Respondent Board and the Board was directed to pass speaking order afresh in accordance with law. According to the direction, the petitioner had produced all the documents and had argued his case in detail, but the documents and submissions have not been mentioned in the order. There is one line conclusion that after hearing both the parties it has been decided that the said trust, in question, is religious trust and it comes within the jurisdiction of the Board, constituted under the provisions of Bihar State Hindu Religious Trust Act, 1950. It has been submitted that in the order dated 9th February, 1998 passed in the said writ petition, it was clearly directed that the Board will pass speaking order, in accordance with law, but the Board has passed a cryptic order.

4. On going through the order, it does not appear as to which document or material was considered and relied upon and why the documents filed by the petitioner were discarded. The order is mechanical, non speaking and violative of the directions of the High Court as also violative of principles of natural justice and the same is wholly illegal and not sustainable.

5. Learned counsel further submitted that the State of Jharkhand has been carved out from the territory of Bihar. The State of Jharkhand has in exercise of power under Section 8 of Jharkhand State Religious Trust Act has constituted Jharkhand Religious Trust Board by Notification No.1976/J dated 25th August, 2010. Now the Jharkhand State Hindu Religious Trust Board has got jurisdiction in the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Jharkhand. It has been submitted that in view of the above, Jharkhand State Religious Trust Board should consider the matter afresh and pass appropriate order.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and considered the facts and materials on record. I perused the order passed by the Chairman, Bihar State Board of Religious Trust, contained in memo no.662 dated 11th July, 1998, which is worth quoting:

“MAHASHAY, BARANWAL DHARAMSHALA DEOGHAR SE SAMBANDHIT SHRI VINDYACHAL PR. BARANWAL, ADHYAKSH, BHARAT VARSHIYA BARANWAL VAISHYA MAHASABHA, BARANASI DWARA MANNIYA PATNA UCHCH NYAYALAY ME DAYAR RIT YACHIKA SANKHYA 7519/1996 ME DINANK 9.2.98 KO PARIT AADESH KE AALOK ME SAMBANDHIT PAKSH KI SUNBAI KE PASHCHAT PURN VICHAROPARANT YAH NIRNAY LIYA GAYA HAI KI VISHYANTARGAT NYAS EK SARVJANIK DHARMIK EVAM DATAVYA NYAS HAI JO NIHSANDEH BIHAR HINDU DHARMIK NYAS ADHIINIYAM 1950 (1951 KE PRATHAM KANUN) KE PRAVDHANO KE ANTAGAT PARSHAD KE KSHETRADHIKAR ME AATA HAI.

ATAH DHARAMSHALA KI VYAVASTHA KE LIYA BIHAR HINDU DHARMIK NYAS ADHINIYAM, 1950 KI DHARA 33 KE ANTARGAT AAPKO (ANUMANDAL PADADHIKARI, DEOGHAR) ASTHAYI VYASDHARI NIYUKT KIYA JATA HAI. ANURODH HAI KI KRIPYA NYAS KA PRABHAR ABILAMB GRAHAN KAR ISKE SUCHARU PRABANDHAN KI DISHA ME SAMUCHIT AAVASHYAK KARVAI KARNE KA KAST KAREN.”

7. On plain reading of the order, it is evident that it does not discuss any document or any argument or any material on record on the basis of which conclusion has been drawn that Baranwal Dharamshala,