Mahanth Vikrama Das v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18106 of 2014 ====================================================== Mahanth Vikrama Das Son of Raksha Mishra, Chela late Laxman Das resident of village Lakhanipur, Jahari Dih Math, P.S. - Paharpur, District - East Champaran (Motihari).

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. The Administrator cum Special Work Officer of President, Bihar State Board of Hindu Religious Trust, Vidyapati Marg, Patna-1

3. The District Magistrate East Champaran.

4. The Sub Divisional Officer Areraj, East Champaran.

5. The Circle Officer, Paharpur Circle, East Champaran. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance:

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwary, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER 29-01-2015 CWJC No.18106 of 2014 with I.A. No. 7983 of 2014 Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwary for the petitioner, counsel for the State and Mr. Ganpati Trivedi, learned senior counsel for the Religious Trust Board are present.

Although the writ petition was filed requiring a direction to the Trust Board to accept the fee from the petitioner but during the pendency of the writ proceedings, an order has been passed by the Bihar State Board of Religious Trust bearing Memo No. 770 dated 4.9.2014 whereby the petitioner has been removed from the post of Mahanth by the Board in exercise of powers vested under Sections 28(2) (h) (iii) (v) (vi) of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The said order has been placed on record by way of interlocutory application bearing

Patna High Court CWJC No.18106 of 2014 (3) dt.29-01-2015 I.A. No. 7983 of 2014.

Mr. Ganpati Trivedi learned senior counsel appearing for the Board has submitted that the order is appealable under Section 28(3) of 'the Act' before the District Judge. Mr. Tiwary submits that as the order has been passed during the pendency of the present writ petition the limitation prescribed has since expired.

In view of the alternative remedy so available to the petitioner under Section 28(3) of 'the Act', the writ petition is disposed of affording him liberty to exhaust the remedy of appeal so available to him.

It goes without saying that any Miscellaneous Case being filed on behalf of the petitioner to question the order of removal under Section 28(3) of 'the Act' before the District Judge within four weeks' from today if accompanied with a petition for condonation of delay, would be considered by the court below on its own merits and disposed of in accordance with law bearing in mind the pendency of the issue before this Court. (Jyoti Saran, J) S.Sb/- U