Patna High Court - Orders
Abhiram Singh vs The Bihar State Board Of Religious Trust ... on 17 July, 2014
Author: Jyoti Saran
Bench: Jyoti Saran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.23849 of 2013
======================================================
Abhiram Singh, S/O Late Anant Singh @ Anant Prasad Singh, Resident of
Village - Jadia, P.S. - Jadia, District - Supaul.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Bihar State Board of Religious Trust Vidyapati Marg, Patna
through its Chairman.
2. Sri Kishore Kumar Kunal, the Chairman, Bihar State Board of
Religious Trust, Vidyapati Marg, Patna.
3. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Triveniganj, Supaul through the State
of Bihar.
4. The Circle Officer, Triveniganj Anchal, Triveniganj Supaul.
5. Sri Birendra Narayan Singh, S/O Late Subodh Narayan Singh,
Resident of Jadiya, Police Station - Jadiya, Distt. Supaul.
6. Ashok Kumar Singh, S/O Late Upendra Narayan Singh, Resident of
Jadiya, Police Station - Jadiya, Distt. Supaul.
7. Sri Prithvi Yadav, S/O Late Munga Lal Yadav, Resident of Jadiya,
Police Station - Jadiya, Distt. Supaul.
8. Sri Bijendra Prasad Singh, S/O Late Rajendra Sing, Resident of
Jadiya, Police Station - Jadiya, Distt. Supaul.
9. Sri Pramod Kumar Singh, S/O Late Yogendra Prasad Singh, Resident
of Jadiya, Police Station - Jadiya, Distt. Supaul.
10. Sri Laxmi Ram, S/O of Late Rajay Ram, Resident of Jadiya, Police
Station - Jadiya, Distt. Supaul.
11. Sri Lalan Prasad 'Daro Hansh', S/O Late Suchdeo Prasad Singh,
Resident of Jadiya, Police Station - Jadiya, Distt. Supaul.
12. Sri Pawan Kumar Singh, S/O of Late Tarni Prasad Singh, Resident of
Jadiya, Police Station - Jadiya, Distt. Supaul.
13. Sri Anil Thakur, S/O Sri Ganeshi Thakur, Resident of Jadiya, Police
Station - Jadiya, Distt. Supaul.
14. Sri Bipin Kumar Singh, S/O Late Jitesh Prasad Singh, Resident of
Jadiya, Police Station - Jadiya, Distt. Supaul.
15. Sri Dilip Prasad Singh, S/O Late Rajdeo Prasad Singh, Resident of
Jadiya, Police Station - Jadiya, Distt. Supaul.
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ratan Kumar
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ganpati Trivedi
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN
ORAL ORDER
2 17-07-2014Heard Mr. Ratan Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Ganpati Trivedi, learned counsel appearing for the Bihar State Board of Religious Trust Patna High Court CWJC No.23849 of 2013 (2) dt.17-07-2014 2 and its authorities (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board').
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 11.4.2013, passed by the Chairman of 'the Board' whereby the Ram Janki Thakurari Trust has been declared to be a public trust under the provisions of section 28(2)(u) of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the rules framed thereunder. Although the said provision also provides a remedy to a person aggrieved by approaching the court of competent jurisdiction but the petitioner is before this Court questioning the impugned order, inter alia, on grounds of having been passed in his absence and without opportunity of hearing to him.
The records of the proceedings in question was produced by Mr. Trivedi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of 'the Board' and with reference thereto it was stated that the matter was taken up on various dates including on 27.12.2012 and when the petitioner was represented. The matter was thereafter posted on 4.2.2013 but could not be taken up in absence of the President and was adjourned to 27.2.2013 on the same date but the petitioner was not represented while the other parties did appear. The matter was thereafter taken up on 27.2.2013 when again it could not be taken up and was adjourned Patna High Court CWJC No.23849 of 2013 (2) dt.17-07-2014 3 to 13.3.2013. On the said date again the petitioner was not present and even on the next date, i.e. 11.4.2013 when the impugned order was passed he was not present. It is thus submitted that it is in the backdrop of these circumstances that the matter was heard ex-parte on 11.4.2013 in absence of the petitioner.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. In normal circumstances if the order would have been passed in hurry, this Court would have remitted the matter for fresh consideration but considering the fact that after registering appearance on 27.12.2012, the petitioner on four subsequent dates absented himself from the proceedings, this Court is not persuaded to do so but then the petitioner is not remediless and under the provisions of section 28 (2) (u) of 'the Act' the order dated 11.4.2013 can be questioned before a court of competent jurisdiction on other grounds.
It already stands settled vide judgments reported in 2008(2) PLJR 812 (Narendra Nath Shukla vs. State of Bihar) and 2009 (2) PLJR 906 (Bihar State Board of Religious Trust vs. Raja Prasad Agrawal) that an order passed under section 28(2) (u) of 'the Act' can be questioned before a civil court of competent jurisdiction.
Patna High Court CWJC No.23849 of 2013 (2) dt.17-07-2014 4
In view of the circumstances discussed hereinabove, this Court without entering into the merits of the case would dispose of this writ petition affording liberty to the petitioner to question the order dated 11.4.2013 before the court of competent civil jurisdiction.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by the pendency of the present proceeding the prescribed period of limitation has expired.
It goes without saying that any such application being filed on behalf of the petitioner within four weeks from today if accompanied with a petition for condonation of delay would be considered and disposed of by the court below on its own merits in accordance with law and after hearing the contesting parties bearing in mind that the matter was pending before this Court.
This writ petition is disposed of with the observation and direction aforementioned.
(Jyoti Saran, J) SKPathak/-
U