RADHA KANT YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -The petitioner herein has impugned the two notifications both dated 17th May, J995. whereby the Bihar Mate Hindu Regligious Trust Board as earlier constituted has been dissolved, and respondent No. 7 to 11 have been appointed as the members of the new Board, with respondent No. 7 as its President. They are Annexures 5 and 8 respectively.

(2.) The facts, in so far as they are relevant for the disposal of this writ petition, are not in dispute. The Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Board is a creature of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as'the Act') Under the Act of 1950 the Hoard with a President was envisaged as an elected body The last such elected Board continued in office till the year 1977, when it was superseded by the State Government. The functions of the Board were thereafter being carried on by Special Officers appointed by the State Government from time to time. This was challenged before this Court in a writ petition. This Court directed the State Government to reconstitute the Board within a specified period. Ultimately an Ordinance was promulgated, which was later enacted as an Amendment Act, being Act 21 of 1992, bringing about significant amendmentt te Section 8 of the Parent Act. By reason of the said amendment the constitution of the Board was changed from an elected to a nominated body with powers vested in the State Government to nominate both, the members and the President of the Board. Ultimately, the State Government constituted the Board and nominated all seven members including the petitioner. The petitioner was further appointed the President of the Board by notification dated 30th December, 1992, published in the Bihar Gazelle on 4th January, 1994. Tn accordance with the provisions of the Act, the members of the Board were to continue in office for a term of five years with effect from the date of publication of their names tn the official gazette The petitioner, therefore, claims that the Board was to continue till 3rd January, 1999, aud thereafter till the date of first meeting of the next succeeding Board. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the Board was performing its functions and duties with full zeal and vieour, and had several achievements to its credit, there were certain inherent defects in the Act as also in the administrative set up, which created hinderances in the achievement of all the objectives within the desired period. The Board consistently was in the grip of financial crisis, particularly on account of the enhancement of exppenditure consequent upon the acceptance of the 5th Pay Revision Committee's recommendations. It is not necessary to refer to other averments in the writ petition which deal with various problems faced by the Board in its functioning. The petitioner refers to various events, and it it his case that despite his satisfactory performance as the President of the Board, respondent Nos. 3 to 6 herein were annoyed with the petitioner for political reasons, and on account of the intraparty bickerings, the petitioner became a victim of political vendatta of these persons. We do not consider it necessary to refer to various allegations made in this regard, but we may only notice the fact that respondent No. 3 happens to be the Chief Minister of the State, respondent No. 4 the Law Minister, and respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are important political figures. The petitioner was surprised to find that all of a sudden the State Government issued the two impugned notifications The Srst notification is contained in Memo No. 1341 dated 17th May, 1935, by which the Board has been dissolved on the ground that the Board had committed persistent defaults in performance of its duties, and abused its power. This notification has been annexed as Annexure-5. By the second notification of the same date bearing Memo No. 1342, consequential in nature, the Government has appointed a new Board consisting of five persons with respondent No. 7 as its President, which is Annexure-S,

(3.) It is not necessary at this stage to refer to the numerous ground on which these notifications have been challenged, but we may only notice the three important grounds which have been pressed before us in support of the writ petition. It was firstly contended that the issuance of the notifications was a malofide exercise of statutory power by respondent Nos. 3 to 6. which includes the Chief Minister and the Law Minister. Secondly, it was contended that before dissolving the Board, the Board was not afforded an opportunity of explaining its case to the government. Thirdly, it was submitted that the notification (Annsxure-5) has been issued in breach of the statutory requirement of Section 80 of the Act, which requires the notification to state the reasons for the action taken by the Government.