Allowed

Shiv Shankar Giri v. State

Patna HC18 Jul 2013CWJC/3256/1990

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This old writ petition challenged the declaration of a Math as a public trust and the consequent removal of the petitioner as a trustee. The High Court found discrepancies in the trust declaration findings and observed that such decisions are akin to Civil Court orders, not purely executive ones. The Court allowed the writ, quashing the declaration order.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order declaring the trust public (Annexure-8) was quashed. Petitioner granted interim protection pending decision by Board.

Shiv Shankar Giri Vs State — Property and Title | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3256 of 1990

¶3

====================================================== Shiv Shankar Giri .... .... Petitioner/s Versus State .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Y.V. Giri , Senior Advocate Mr. Raju Giri For the Respondent No.3 : Mr. Shekhar Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL ORDER

¶4

15 18-07-2013 This is an old known writ application, which was admitted for hearing and is being taken up only now. Writ application came to be filed when the respondent Hindu Religious Trust Board ousted the petitioner from the Trusteeship of a Math, which is known as Rajabhar Math. It is the claim of the petitioner that he is heir and successor of the recorded raiyat of one Mahanth Raghunath Giri

¶5

Patna High Court CWJC No.3256 of 1990 (15) dt.18-07-2013

¶6

2 / 4

¶7

and the property in question is a private property not a public Trust still it has subsequently been declared to be one vide Annexure- 8.The writ application Challenges Annexure-8 which had already been stayed by the Court earlier as well as removal of the petitioner as a trustee. Therefore, both the questions requires attention of the Court.

¶8

So far as the second question is concerned, after having gone there the enquiry report of one of the functionaries of the Trust Board, contained at Annexure-9, and having read Annexure-8, the order as declaration of the trust to be a Public Trust, this Court has no hesitation in recording that the findings in Annexure-8 and 9 are not harmonious. In fact, findings have been arrived at in Annexure-8, even without any decisive evidence having been discussed and without any reference to the report contained in Annexure-9.

¶9

Power vested in the Board under sections 28 (2) (u)

¶10

of the Act, which has gone a change in the year 2007 is akin to a

¶11

Patna High Court CWJC No.3256 of 1990 (15) dt.18-07-2013

¶12

3 / 4

¶13

Civil Court. Such vital decisions can not be taken by the Executive as an administrative decision because declaration of a property as

¶14

a public trust has many implications.

¶15

So far the removal of the petitioner as a trustee is concerned, if the Second part of the decision is interfered with then the decision to remove him from trusteeship also goes. The Hindu Religious Trust Board can only exercise power over trust

¶16

which comes within their domain and control.

¶17

The issue is still wide open whether the trust in question is a private trust or a public trust?

¶18

The writ application is allowed. Impugned order as Annexure-8 is quashed.

¶19

Let the Board decide the issue in terms of Section 28(2) (u). If the decision goes against the interest of the petitioner, he surely has remedy reverts even within the act or beyond the act.

¶20

Till such a decision is taken the petitioner would not be disturbed.

¶21

Patna High Court CWJC No.3256 of 1990 (15) dt.18-07-2013

¶22

4 / 4

¶23

Writ is allowed in terms of the above.
(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)
Sudha/-

Shiv Shankar Giri v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Shankar Giri v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Anil Kumar and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Anup Kumar Ram Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Narendra Kumar Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Mosst.Akalima Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Deo Narain Sharma Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.