Lalan Prasad Singh v. The Bihar State Board Of Religious Trust

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7434 of 2024 ====================================================== 1.

Lalan Prasad Singh Son of Late Phudan Prasad singh Resident of villagBiratpur, P.S.-Sonbarsa, District- Saharsa. 2.

Raghvendra Narayan Singh Son of Late Upendra Narayan Singh Resident of Village-Sahsaul, P.S.- Sonbarsa, District-Saharsa. 3.

Ashok Kumar Singh Son of Late Bramhanand Singh Resident of villageViratpur, P.S.-Sonbarsa, District- Saharsa. 4.

Sunil Kumar Singh Son of Late Budhinath Singh Resident of villageViratpur, P.S.- Sonbarsa, District- Saharsa 5.

Birendra Kumar Singh Son of Mahachandra Prasad Singh Resident of village- Manguar, P.S.- Sonbarsa, District- Saharsa. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The Bihar State Board of Religious Trust Through its Chairman, Vidyapati Margh, Police Station- Buddha Colony, Patna.

2.

The District Magistrate, Saharsa.

3.

Santosh Kumar Singh Son of Late Birendra Narayan Singh, Resident of Village- Biratpur, P.S.- Sonbarsa, District- Saharsa. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ram Nibash Prasad, Advocate For the Religious Trusts Board :

Mr. Shekhar Singh, Sr. Advocate :

Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocte For the Respondent No. 3 :

Mr. Alok Ranjan, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Mrigendra Kumar, AC to GP-10 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 24-03-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for Religious Trust Board.

2. In view of the Paragraph 8 of the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner which is quoted here as below:

8. That after the expiry of one year

Patna High Court CWJC No.7434 of 2024(9) dt.24-03-2025 2/2 period from 24.01.2024 i.e. the date of appointment of collector as temporary trustee the prayer no. 1 has become infructuous and the prayer nos. 2 and 3 are the remaining prayer in the instant writ application.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the specific averments made in the Paragraph 8 of the supplementary affidavit, the prayer no. 1 has become infructuous and he further submits that the prayer nos. 2 & 3 of the writ petition is connected with the prayer no. 1 of the writ petition.

4. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the material available on record and in view of the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners, particularly Paragraph No. 8 of the supplementary affidavit, no case is made out for interference of this Court.

5. The present writ petition is dismissed.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Jyoti Kumari/- U