KAILASH RAI Vs. RAMJEE SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision by two persons. Petitioner No. 1 claims to be the sebait and trustee of certain trust and the properties appertaining thereto. Petitioner No. 2 is the President, Bihar State Board of Religious Trusts (hereinafter referred to as the Board) established under the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 27-6-1974 of the District Judge at Arrah in Miscellaneous Judicial Case 1 of 1974, they have moved this court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the setting aside of the said order,

(2.) At the time of the hearing of this civil revision application cause has been shown on behalf of opposite party No. 1 (hereinafter called the opposite party) alone. No other opposite party has appeared to oppose this application.

(3.) Facts may be stated in a narrow compass. In relation to the trust in question complaints were made by the villagers before the Board that the trust and its properties were being mismanaged by the first petitioner (hereinafter called the petitioner) and his brother. On an earlier occasion the petitioner took the stand that It was a private trust and the Board had no control over it. The President of the Board made an order on 2-4-1973 under Section 32 (1) of the Act setting a scheme for proper administration of the trust. Seven persons including the opposite party were appointed as members of a committee for the proper administration of the trust. The opposite party, as it appears from the order of the District Judge, was appointed the Secretary of the committee. A writ application was filed by the petitioner against the order of the Board but that failed. Thereafter the petitioner filed Miscellaneous Judicial case 12 of 1973 before the District Judge, Arrah, under Sub-section (3) of Section 32 of the Act to challenge the scheme framed by the President of the Board. Certain developments took place during the pendency of that miscellaneous Judicial Case. First an order of injunction was made, later it was vacated and then ultimately the miscellaneous Judicial case was withdrawn by the petitioner, because during its pendency he seems to have accepted the position that the trust was a public trust of the kind which was governed by the Act, It may be stated here that undisputedly the scheme settled by the Board on 2-4-1974 had not been published in the official gazette as required by Sub-section (2) of Section 32 nor had the Board appointed any date from which the scheme was to come into force. The Board modified the Scheme so settled earlier and settled a fresh scheme, in which the petitioner who was a member of the 7-men committee was also included as a member. The opposite party who was a member of the previous committee was left out. This scheme was published in the gazette and seems to have come into force. The opposite party challenged this scheme in C. W. J. C. 1522 of 1973. He was allowed to withdraw this writ application on 29-11-1973 by a Bench of this court in order to enable him to avail of the adequate alternative remedy of a proceeding under Section 32 (3) of the Act. Accordingly the opposite party filed the present miscellaneous Judicial case being M. J. C. 1 of 1974 before the District Judge, Arrah, to challenge the final scheme which was published in the gazette.