Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.23 seconds)
Mahanth Ram Shankar Das vs Bihar State Religious Trusts Board And ... on 15 May, 1998 cites

Ishwari Prasad Jhunjhunwala vs Bihar State Religious Trust Board, ... on 11 April, 1989

Having regard to the aforesaid provision, the respondent Board can remove a trustee if such trustee is convicted or refuses to act or wilfully disobeys the direction of the respondent authority. Even assuming for a moment that the trust is a public trust, the petitioner has not been removed by the respondent Board in exercise of its power under the provisions aforesaid. It goes without saying that the respondent authority can exercise its power under Section 33 of the Act only after removing a trustee in accordance with law. The respondent-President, while passing the impugned order, has not assigned any reason whatsoever as to how the private respondent is being appointed a temporary trustee in terms of Section 33 of the Act. Reference, in this connection, may be made to the decision in the case of Ishwari Prasad Jhunjhunwala v. Bihar State Religious Trusts Board, Patna, AIR 1989 Patna 349. The allegation, according to the private respondent that the petitioner having a criminal antecedents and trying to grab the trust property is wholly misconceived, as the petitioner is neither named in the first information report nor the charge-sheet has been submitted against him nor he has been convicted in any offence, so as to call for any interference in this regard by the authority. Even if the contention of respondent No. 3 be accepted as it is claimed he is the Gurubhai of late Mahanth Balram Das, the rightful claim of the petitioner cannot be defeated having regard to the fact that he is a Chela of late Mahanth Balram Das and accordingly to the recital in the deed of dedication and the affidavit by late Mahanlh Narayan Das, as contained in Annexures-23 and 12, respectively, the petitioner has a preferential claim over the private respondent. The submission of the learned counsel for the private respondent to the effect that since the file has already been opened with regard to the Math, in question, in the office of the respondent Board, the respondent authority is well within its jurisdiction to pass the impugned order without resorting to the provisions of Section 28 (2)(h) of the Act, is wholly misconceived and rejected as such. Even if the trustee submitted to the dictates of the respondent authority his conduct does not amount to waiver of his rights muchless his legal rights.
Patna High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 3 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1