BAIJAYNANDA GIRI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these applications which have been heard together an important question of law arises for determination, viz., whether the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act (Bihar Act 1 of 1951) is constitutionally valid.

(2.) In M. J. C. No. 418 the petitioner is Mahanth Moti Das whose muth is situated at village Parbatta in district of Monghyr. The Mahanth is a Bairagi and follower of the religion founded by Shri Kabir Sahib. The Mahanth states in the affidavit that the muth was founded for the spiritual benefit of a particular sect called Kabirpanthis whose doctrines are contrary to the beliefs of the Hindus. The Mahanth alleges that the properties of the muth have been treated as private properties and there is no trust imposed on these properties for any religious or charitable purpose. It is said that on 18-8-1952 a notice was served upon the Mahanth by the opposite party No. 1 under Section 59 of the impugned Act calling upon him to furnish a statement of the properties of the religious trust and threatening to prosecute him in case of default. It is contended for the petitioner that the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act is unconstitutional and void as its provisions violate Articles 14, 19(1) (f), 25, 26 and 27 of the Constitution of India. It is further contended that the religion founded by Kabir Sahib is not of Hindu origin and therefore the Act has no application to the petitioner or to the Asthal of which the petitioner is Mahanth. The petitioner prays that High Court should issue a writ in the nature of prohibition or mandamus against the opposite parties restraining them from interfering with the right of the petitioner to manage the properties of the muth.

(3.) In M. J. C. No. 415 the petitioner is Mahanth Sri Baijayananda Giri of Manik Chawk uth. The allegations of the petitioner are similar to those made in M. J. C. No. 418. The provisions of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act are challenged as unconstitutional and void and there is a further assertion on behalf of the petitioner that the properties of the muth are not trust properties at all and the Act has no application even if it is held that the Act does not violate any constitutional guarantee.