Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act | State Religious Trust Board Must Follow Principles Of Natural Justice & Hear Affected Person: High Court
The Patna High Court has ruled that before passing any order or making a decision under Section 28(2)(u) of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950 (the Act), the Bihar State Board of Religious Trusts must adhere to the principles of natural justice by affording a hearing opportunity to the affected or interested party.Under Section 28(1), the Board holds general oversight over all...
The Patna High Court has ruled that before passing any order or making a decision under Section 28(2)(u) of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950 (the Act), the Bihar State Board of Religious Trusts must adhere to the principles of natural justice by affording a hearing opportunity to the affected or interested party.
Under Section 28(1), the Board holds general oversight over all religious trusts in the State. It is mandated to take reasonable and necessary actions to ensure proper supervision and administration of these trusts. Additionally, the Board is responsible for ensuring that the trust's income is appropriately utilized for its designated purposes, in alignment with the trust's founding or existing objectives to the extent they can be determined.
Section 28(2)(u) empowers the Board to determine disputes regarding the classification of a trust as public or private, as defined in Section 2(1) of the Act. The Board's decision on this matter remains valid unless overturned by a competent court.
In allowing the plea and remanding the matter back to the Board, Justice Harish Kumar observed, “This Court time without number made it clear that before passing any order or making decision under 28(2)(u) has cautioned the Board to adhere to the principles of natural justice and to provide opportunity of hearing to the interested/evicted person. It is manifest from the impugned order, as contained in Annexure-3, that the order for appointment of trustee is passed without any enquiry or notice to the affected person.”
The Petitioner, claiming to be the Shebait of Sri Ram Janki Mandir, Sonpatahi (Babubarhi), had filed the plea seeking to quash a letter issued by the President, Bihar State Board of Religious Trust (respondent no.5) whereby one Sur Shyam Das (respondent no.6) was appointed as Trustee of the temple, allegedly, without the procedure prescribed under the law.
The petitioner sought relief of declaration that neither the Bihar State Board of Religious Trust, Patna nor Sur Shyam Das had any concern over the lands and properties of the deities as well as of the temple and for protection of the legal right, title, interest and peaceful possession of the deities as well as the present petitioner from Sur Shyam Das.
The petitioner prayed for restraining The Bihar State Board of Religious Trust, its President and Sur Shyam Das from interfering with the smooth functioning and management of the Rag-Bhog & other daily routine work of the deities, and for the protection of the landed property of the deities from the unscrupulous person/anti-social elements, who had greedy eyes on the properties of the temple, in question.
The Court in its verdict asserted that Section 32 2(i) of the Act, 1950 empowers the Board to settle schemes for the proper administration of religious trusts. However, it noted that the said provision clearly stipulates that an application/complaint must be filed by two or more persons, who are interested in any trust.
The Court further asserted that in the absence of such prerequisites, no cognizance of such application could have been taken by the Trust Board.
The Court observed that instead of making a spot verification or asking for a report from local authorities, the Board seeking the recommendation of the Akhada of Ayodhya, who had no concern with the present temple, cannot lead to the formation of a conclusive opinion to pass orders of appointment of a trustee.
It highlighted that the appointment of a trustee, as per the impugned order, was made without conducting any inquiry or providing notice to the affected party.
Additionally, the Court took note of the petitioner's ownership of pertinent documents and the unanswered challenge to the appointment of Respondent No. 6 by the Petitioner's father.
Addressing the argument of delay and the assertion that the writ petition was time-barred, the Court observed that any order lacking jurisdiction was void ab initio and could be contested at any point.
The Court said, “It is needless to observe that no law of limitation applies in a writ jurisdiction and wherever and whenever this Court while exercising power of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution can hold and declare any order unsustainable, if it is found to be per se illegal, without jurisdiction and in complete violation of the principles of natural justice.”
“The plea of estoppel, as raised in the present writ petition on behalf of Bihar State Board of Religious Trusts also does not inspire any force, as there cannot be any estoppel against the law that too in a facts where the father of the petitioner had challenged the very appointment of respondent no.6, as trustee, but the same has never been answered. In such an event, fault/laches if any, pointing fingers towards the Board, who failed to discharge its duty,” the Court added while allowing the plea.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed the Bihar State Board of Religious Trusts to reconsider the matter.
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shashi Nath Jha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rishi Raj Sinha, SC-19
For the Resp. No.6 : Mr. Manoj Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the BSBRT : Mr. Ganpati Trivedi, Sr. Advocate
Case No.: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1086 of 2021
Case Title: Ajay Kumar Mahto vs The State of Bihar and Ors
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Pat) 1