RAM GOPAL DAS Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two petitioners were members for the Managing Committee of Mahabir Asthan Mandir, which is, perhaps, the most popular in the city of Patna. By an office order No. 3702 dated 20-10-1987 issued by respondent No. 2, Bihar Rajya Hindu Religious Trust Board, the Managing Committee of the Mandir was dissolved and a new Committee was constituted to look after the affairs of Mahabir Asthan. A copy of the order has been appended as Annexure-1 which was sought to be quashed when the writ application was filed. During the pendency of this application, a supplementary affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondents annexing Notification dated 16-3-1990 issued by respondent No. 2, the Board, stating the fact that a trust committee has been formed by it by reconstituting Shri Mahabir Asthan Trust Committee. The Committee so formed consisted of 11 persons. In these circumstances, the petitioners filed an application with a prayer to quash the Notification dated 16-3-1990 reconstituting the Managing Committee of Shri Mahabir Asthan Trust Committee (Annexure-9) also. Further a prayer was made to implead the new members of the committee as party-respondents to the writ application. The prayer was allowed by this Court on 16-8-1990.

(2.) According to the petitioners, there were 11 members of Shri Mahabir Mandir Trust Committee, including the two petitioners. Notices were issued to all the 11 members of the Trust Committee asking them as to why the dues amounting to Rs. 5921.74 paise was not deposited in the office of the Bihar Religious Trust Board. The members were, therefore, asked to show cause by 20/07/1987 as to why another committee be not constituted after dissolving the present committee for better management of the Trust. A copy of this notification has been marked as Annexure-2. Annexure-3 is the reply dated 20-7-1987 sent by the Managing Committee of the Mandir to respondent No. 2 stating therein that Rs. 3484.80 paise has already been deposited with the Boarder-vide Receipt No. 2461 dated 27-6-1987. It was also said that this amount was paid as fee on the basis of the audit report and that it was prepared to pay any further amount if found due on the basis of any other audit report. In the circumstance, a request was made to inform the committee of any outstanding dues so that the same could be deposited. The show cause also made a request to grant one month's time to file another show cause with regard to the reconstitution of a fresh Managing Committee after dissolving the existing one for better management of the Trust. The grievance of the petitioners is that without considering the reply of the Managing Committee as contained in Annexure 3, respondent No. 2 constituted a new committee as contained in Annexure 1 after dissolving the existing committee. It is also said by the petitioners that sometime back the dispute with regard to the constitution of the Managing Committee was considered by this Court in Misc. Appeal No. 428 of 1956. That appeal was disposed of on the basis of a compromise petition filed by the parties to the appeal. According to that compromise, it is said that the Board had agreed not to interfere with the management of the temple and its properties by the Committee.

(3.) A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 2, the Board, which, inter alia, states that the erstwhile managing committee was dissolved and a new committee was constituted for better management of the temple and its properties. Further it was said that show cause notice contained two parts; in the first Part, the members were asked to show cause for non-payment of fee to the Board while in the second part they were asked to show cause as to why the erstwhile committee should not be dissolved for proper and better management of the Trust. The fact that a reply was sent by the members of the erstwhile committee on 20-7-1987 was accepted but it is said that the reply was confined to the non-submission of fee. With regard to the notice regarding constitution of new committee after dissolving the existing one, a request for a month's time was made to give reply to this part of the notice. But more than a month passed and no show cause with respect to that part of the notice was given and ultimately the Board passed the order as contained in Annexure-1 after considering all aspects of the matter. The fact that under the compromise entered into in Misc. Appeal, the Board had agreed not to interfere with the management of the temple and its properties is accepted but it is said that it does not mean that the Board will not be entitled from exercising its statutory obligation of interference when it feels that the Committee is contravening with any provision of the Trust Act. It is said that in the Misc. Appeal itself while approving the compromise, the court observed "the power of the Board to make alteration in the constitution of the committee from time to time cannot be doubted for a moment". It was further stated that under the compromise order it was said that "if and when any vacancy takes place, the remaining members of the committee will select another suitable man to fill up the vacancy with the approval of the Board." It was said that these two petitioners were taken as members of the Committee after the compromise in the Misc. Appeal but their selection as members of the Committee was never approved by the Board. Therefore, it is said that the petitioners were not lawfully selected members of the Committee and, as such, they could not maintain this application. It was also said that under clause 'C' of the compromise petition, it was said "the said committee will prepare a sound scheme of the management of the said temple and its properties and send the scheme to the Board for approval.". According to the counter-affidavit, no scheme was ever prepared for three decades in spite of several reminders. Allegations of mismanagement were also made in the counter-affidavit. It was said that in the year 1978-79, the total income of the Trust was shown to be Rs. 29815 / - and the fee chargeable by the Board was only Rs. 1304.45 paise. The same fee was charged for the year 1979-80 to 1983-84. In the year 1984-85, the income was shown as Rs. 30140.00 and in the year 1985-86, it was shown at Rs. 59690.00. It is said that the new committee took over charge of the Trust and its properties on 2-11-1987. The income from offerings to the deities jumped to Rupees 10,5,295/- between 2-11-1987 to 2-11-1988. Further it was said that under Annexure-9, an elaborate and ambitious scheme like running of hospital, school and other charitable institutions has been framed. About petitioner No. 1 it was stated that he is an accused in a case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and that a raid was conducted by the Income-tax Department in the temple and about Rs. 5,80,000.00- besides documents and other valuable assets were recovered. It is also stated that in that raid illegal arms were also recovered from the premises of the temple.