TEJ BAHADUR VERMA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE the pleadings are complete, this writ application is being disposed of with consent of the parties at the admission stage itself. In this writ application, the petitioner has challenged the validity and correctness of the order, dated 21.6.1997 passed by the respondent Chairman, Bihar State Hindu Religious Trusts Board, Patna (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board ') by which in purported exercise of power under section 33 of the Bihar State Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act ') respondent no. 6, Satya Narayan Yadav, has been appointed as the Managing Trustee of Shri Shyamlal Trust, Khagaria, and also for quashing of the order, dated 21.10.97 passed by the respondent District Magistrate, Khagaria, whereby the respondent Subdivisional Officer, Khagaria, was directed to ensure the making over charge of the Trust, in question, to the newly appointed Managing Trustee, Shri Satya Narayan Yadav, respondent no. 6 one copy of each of the aforesaid order is made Annexures -5 and 9, respectively, to the writ application.

(2.) THE facts of this case, as made out in the pleadings, are as follows. One Shyam Lal Sahu, who was issueless, for the purpose of the benefit of the general public and in order to maintain his own reputation, expressed his desire to establish a Middle School for the benefit of the general public in the locality. Accordingly, he executed two deeds of gift - one in January, 1910 and another, subsequently, on 22nd December, 1916, dedicating his entire properties for the establishment and maintenance of a Middle School at Khagaria. In the first deed of gift, it has been envisaged that the same had been executed for the purpose of management of the said school. It has been alleged in the scheme itself that there will be a Board of Trustees comprising of 13 members to manage and look after the day -to -day administration of the school and he himself appointed as a Managing Trustee. By the subsequent deed of gift, dated 22nd December, 1916, he has donated his entire properties to the said Middle English School, Khagaria. A copy of the said deed of gift is Annexure -1 to this writ application. According to the terms and conditions mentioned in the deed including the management of the school, in question, the said Shyam Lal Sahu continued as the Managing Trustee of the Trust for his whole life and after his death, other members of the Trust were appointed Managing Trustee in terms of the Scheme and the last one was the petitioner, Tej Bahadur Verma, who was appointed by the Board of Trustee in its meeting, dated 17.3.1996, strictly in accordance with the terms and condition of the deed of gift. It is mentioned in the deed of gift itself that after the death of the executant, the managing trustee shall be appointed by the members of the Trust by a majority decision. A copy of the resolution, dated 17.3.1996, is made Annexure -2 to this writ application. The petitioner is managing the affairs of the school since his appointment as Managing Trustee. The respondent Board by its letter, dated 21.4,1997, has directed the Ex -Managing Trustee, namely, Ram Udit Sahu to submit the budget of the school within the time mentioned therein. A copy of the said letter is made Annexure -3 to this writ application. Pursuant to the notice aforesaid, the Ex -Managing Trustee, Ram Udit Sahu, has sent a letter to the Board on 25.4.1997 stating, inter alia, that Shri Shyam Lal Rashtriya Vidyalaya Trust is out and out a private Trust and, as such, it does not come within the mischief of the provisions of the Act. A copy of the said letter is made Annexure -4 to this writ application. Surprisingly, all of a sudden, the respondent Board, in purported exercise of its power under section 33 of the Act, has appointed respondent no.6, Satya Narayan Yadav, as Managing Trustee on the basis of the application filed by the said Satya Narayan Yadav on 30th of May, 1997. The Respondent no.3, the Special Officer of the Board sent a letter to the Ex -Managing Trustee, namely, Ram Udit Sahu, directing him to disclose the name of the Managing Trustee of the school, in question. Both the petitioner as well as the Ex -Managing Trustee, namely, Ram Udit Sahu filed an application on 18.10.1997 before the Deputy Collector -in -charge, Khagaria, stating therein that on the basis of the forged and fabricated documents, the said Satya Narayan Yadav has been appointed as a Managing Trustee by the respondent Board. A copy of each of the said applications are made Annexures 8 and 8/1, respectively, to this writ application. Satya Narayan Yadav, respondent no. 6, filed a written statement stating, inter alia, that since the Shyam Lal Rashtriya Vidyalaya Trust is registered with the Bihar State Hindu Religious Trust Board, the respondent Board has rightly appointed him as a Managing Trustee of the Shyam Lal Rashtriya Vidyalaya Trust, Khagaria. It is further stated that a suit being Title Suit No. 31 of 1997 is pending before the Munsif, Khagaria, wherein, one of the reliefs sought for is that the said school is a private educational Trust and will not come within the jurisdiction of the respondent Board. It is further alleged that when the deed of gift was executed by late Shyamlal Sahu in the year, 1910, neither the Board nor the Act was in existence and, as such, the petitioner cannot take advantage of the terms and conditions mentioned in the deed of gift. It was further alleged that since the petitioner was misusing and misappropriating the properties of the trust, in question, in collusion with others including the Ex -Managing Trustee, namely, Ram Udit Sahu, the respondent Board rightly passed the order appointing him (respondent no.6) as Managing Trustee of the Trust, in question. In sum and substance, the stand taken by the private respondent no. 6, Satya Narayan Yadav, is that the Trust, in question, is a public trust and since the petitioner, in collusion with others, was misappropriating the properties of the Trust, the Board in proported exercise of its power under section 33 of the Act has rightly appointed him as Managing Trustee of the Trust, in question. Similarly, a counter - affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Board stating, inter alia, that since the Trust, in question, is a registered Trust and, as such, the respondent is fully competent to interfere in the day -to -day management of the Trust, in question. It is further alleged that the impugned order passed by the respondent Board is perfectly legal and valid and cannot be questioned by the petitioner.

(3.) BEFORE I part with this order, it is made clear that any observation made in this order will not prejudice the case of the either parties in the pending title suit.