Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Renu Kumari W/o Hem Narayan Sahay – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 7800 of 2012, W.P. (C) No. 3580 of 2003, W.P. (C) No. 6355 of 2023
Decided On : 03-01-2025
(A) Bihar State Hindu Religious Trust Act, 1950 - Sections 2(l), 5, 19, 29, 32, 38 - Jurisdiction of the State Hindu Religious Trust Board - The court found that the orders passed by the State Hindu Religious Trust Board were without jurisdiction as they did not comply with the statutory provisions of the Act, particularly regarding the constitution of the Board and the decision-making process. (Paras 20-27)
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - The court held that even in the presence of an alternative remedy, the writ can be maintained if the orders are without jurisdiction, reaffirming the principle established in Whirlpool Corporation Limited v. Registrar of Trade Marks. (Paras 25-26)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged the registration certificate and subsequent orders regarding a private religious trust created for family worship, asserting that the actions taken by the State Hindu Religious Trust Board were unauthorized and violated the provisions of the Act.
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that both the registration certificate and the order passed by the S.D.O. were without jurisdiction and quashed them.
Issues: The main issues were whether the temple was a private or public trust and whether the orders passed by the Board were in accordance with the law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the temple was a private endowment and that the Board's actions were not compliant with the statutory requirements, thus rendering the orders invalid.
Result: Both writ petitions allowed and the impugned orders quashed.
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
1. On repeated call, nobody has responded on behalf of the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 3580 of 2003 and it was pointed out that the prayer in the said writ petition is different from the other two writ petitions and it has been wrongly tagged with these two petitions being W.P. (C) No. 7800 of 2012 and W.P. (C) No. 6355 of 2023 and in view of that, W.P. (C) No. 3580 of 2003 be detached from these two writ petitions which will be decided separately.
2. Let this case being W.P. (C) No. 3580 of 2003 be placed before the Bench which is having the Roster.
3. W.P. (C) No. 7800 of 2012 has been assigned to this Court by the Minutes of Hon’ble the Chief Justice.
4. Since the controversy in W.P. (C) No. 7800 of 2012 is identical to W.P. (C) No. 6355 of 2023, the co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 14.05.2024 has directed to list W.P. (C) No. 6355 of 2023 along with W.P. (C) No. 7800 of 2012 and that is how, both these writ petitions have been listed today and accordingly, both these writ petitions are being heard on merit.
5. Heard Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 7800 of 2012 and W.P. (C) No. 6355 of 2023, Mr. Kunal Chandra Suman, learned counsel appearing in W.P. (C) No. 3580 of 2003, Mr. Divyam, learned A.C. to S.C. IV appearing in W.P. (C) No. 7800 of 2012 and Mr. Yogesh Modi the learned A.C to A.A.G. (1-A) appearing in W.P. (C) No. 6355 of 2023 on behalf of the respondent State, Mr. Nitin Kumar Pasari, the learned counsel appearing in W.P. (C) No. 3580 of 2003 on behalf of the respondent no. 5 as well as Mr. Bharat Kumar, the learned counsel appearing in W.P. (C) No. 7800 of 2012 and W.P. (C) No. 6355 of 2023 on behalf of the Jharkhand Hindu Religious Trust Board.
6. In W.P. (C) No. 7800 of 2012 the prayer is made for quashing of the registration certificate being letter no. 546 of 2011 dated 23.06.2011 as contained in Annexure-2 on the ground that it was without jurisdiction.
7. In W.P. (C) No. 6355 of 2023, the prayer has been made for quashing of the order dated 20.10.2023 as contained in Annexure-10 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Hazaribagh in Miscellaneous Case No. 2 of 2021 and 24 of 2023.
8. Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 7800 of 2012 and W.P. (C) No. 6355 of 2023 submits that one Maida Kunwari, widow of late Hari Sahu and daughter of Govind Sahu owned a residential house situated at Boddom Bazar, Hazaribagh. In due course of time, she constructed a Mandir in a part of her residential house for the worship of their family idol, namely “Panchdevta” whereby idols of Radhakrishnaji, Shivji, Mahavirji, Suraj Maharaj Jee and Maharani Bhagwatiji are installed. He further submits that by way of registered deed dated 04.12.1901, said Maida Kunwari created a private religious trust for worship of the family idol and appointed one Mahant Sri Balramdasji and his disciple Mahant Mohandasji as Pujari and Caretakers of the said Radha Krishna Panch Mandir. By way of referring the said deed contained in Annexure-1, he submits that the said deed contains a clear recital that the same is being created as private religious trust for fulfillment of the desire of Vishnu Bhagwan, which she saw in her dreams. By way of referring the said deed further contained in Annexure-1 in W.P. (C) No. 7800 of 2012, he submits that it was recited therein that for the purpose of expenses of the festival and other religious functions the entire contributions will be made by the family members and no aid, offering and donations shall be taken from any other persons. He submits that it is also depicted therein that the rent, cess, etc. received by the family in lieu of their proprietary interest from the two Mauzas, namely, Mouza-Hindgiri and Mouza-Khurd amounting to Rs. 5,000/- per year would be used for the maintenance and other expenses. In this background, he submits that the private e
The court ruled that actions taken by the State Hindu Religious Trust Board were without jurisdiction due to non-compliance with statutory provisions, affirming the private nature of the religious tr....
Supersession of a religious trust committee must comply with statutory provisions; failure to do so renders the action arbitrary and subject to judicial review.
The appointment of non-hereditary trustees is valid under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act when there is evidence of mismanagement by hereditary trustees, and full legal procedures a....
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.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
