Patna High CourtC. REV./500/2012dismissed

Mahendra Singh v. The Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Board And ORS.

2015-09-23Mr. Justice Samarendra Pratap Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Review No.500 of 2012 ====================================================== Mahendra Singh, Son of Late Sikarchand Singh, Resident of Village - Santan Garh, Santawan Bigha, P.O. Bara, Korium, P.S. and District - Arwal .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Board, Vidyapati Marg, Patna

2. Administrator - Cum - Special Executive Officer, Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Board, Vidyapati Marg, Patna

3. Assistant Superintendent of Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Board, Vidyapati Marg, Patna. .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Praveen Kr. Agrawal, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ganpati Trivedi, Sr. Advocate ======================================================

CORAM:

HONOURABLE MR.

JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH ORAL ORDER 23-09-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the opposite parties.

The petitioner seeks review of order dated 08.10.2012, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2002 of 2009. The petitioner had filed C.W.J.C. No. 2002 of 2009 praying therein to quash letter dated 29.05.2008 as well as Memo dated 07.08.2008 passed by the Religious Trust Board. However, the Board submitted that both the letters have lost their force as a new Committed has been constituted for three years. Taking into consideration that the earlier committee, which was in challenge, had lost its force and a new committee has been constituted, the writ application was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the subsequent order constituting a new committee.

Patna High Court C. REV. No.500 of 2012 (9) dt.23-09-2015 2 / 2 The petitioner has sought review of the order dated 08.10.2012 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2002 of 2009 on the ground that the said committee also lost its force. He further alleges that the Board has misrepresented before the Court. The petitioner submits that on the date of passing of the order, the new committee was very much in existence. He thus submits that no ground for review of the said order is made out. Relying upon a decision in case of Bharat Singh & others Vs. State of Haryana, reported in AIR 1988 SC 2181, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Party raising the point must plead not only the facts but also annex evidence in proof of the facts. The reliance of the petitioner in case of Bharat Singh (supra) is misconceived as the facts are different. I find that there is no error apparent in the record of the case, as such the review application is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.) Uday/- U