LAKSHMAN DAS Vs. THE BIHAR STATE RELIGIOUS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in the present case is questioning the order dtd. 16/10/2008 passed by the Administrator cum Special Executive Officer (respondent no.2), Bihar State Religious Trust Board (hereinafter referred to as the "Board"), by which he has confirmed respondent no. 3 as Mahanth of Kishunpur Surmaha Thakurwari. It is not in dispute that the trust of Kishunpur Surmaha Thakurwari has been constituted under the provisions of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that it was the petitioner who was entitled to be appointed as Mahanth upon death of Sri Soukhi Das but by ignoring his candidature said Sri Soukhi Das who was the Mahanth of the Math had got appointed his grand son (respondent no. 3) as a trustee and the said nomination made by Sri Soukhi Das Mahanth has been approved by the Board.

(2.) Learned counsel submits that this petitioner is connected with this Math since his childhood as Chela and earlier he was entitled for appointment as Mahanth when one Mittar Das who was also a Chela of Bodh Ram Das was appointed as Mahanth. He had raised an issue against appointment of Mittar Das but then in order to reconcile the whole dispute the petitioner was made assistant Mahanth. Learned counsel submits that even in the impugned order dtd. 16/10/2018, the Administrator cum Special Executive Officer has taken a view that in public charitable trust the appointment of own son and grand son as a successor declaring them Chela is not a healthy trend and this may be prejudicial to the interest of the Trust but despite this observation the Administrator cum Special Executive Officer has not interfered with the appointment of respondent no. 3 and has rather affirmed the same by holding that there is no illegality or infirmity in the procedure adopted for purpose of appointment of respondent no. 3 as Mahanth.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondent no. 3 was never a disciple/Chela of Sri Soukhi Das Mahanth. On the other hand, Sri Ganpati Trivedi, learned senior counsel representing the Board submits that it is not in question that respondent no. 3 is a Virakkt Bairagi (unmarried Saint). Learned senior counsel submits that the only objection which the petitioner has, is with regard to the relationship of respondent no. 3 with the erstwhile Mahanth Sri Soukhi Das. It is submitted with reference to the provisions contained under Sec. 28(2)(s) of the Act that even the powers and duties of the Board contained therein permits a trustee to retire from his office and in case the trustee has power to appoint his successor, to permit him to make the appointment in his lifetime.