Shri Radhe Krishn Sah Sai Mandir Vikas Trust, Sri Radha Krishna v. Bihar State Board Of Religious Trust

Challenge of the learned counsel for petitioner to the said order is only on the ground that the President of the Board has passed the order and not the Board itself. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to Section 32 of the Act to emphasize that under the said provision power has been granted to the Board to act in a particular manner for settlement of schemes for proper Patna High Court CWJC No.23691 of 2012 (3) dt.18-01-2013 administration of the religious trust and not to the President of the Board. Learned counsel submits that when the Act authorizes the Board to act in a particular manner the President of the Board cannot assume the powers of the Board and act on his own. He submits that in the counter affidavit the respondents have pleaded that the order was passed by the Board which is contrary to the records. They have although stated in the counter affidavit that the statement made therein are based on record but they have not annexed anything in support of the same.

In the circumstances, he submits that the pleadings of the respondent Board is defective and cannot be taken into account. In support of this submission, learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of Brahmdeo Thakur Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 2008 (1) PLJR 82 and a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bharat Singh & Ors. Vs. The State of Haryana & Ors. reported in AIR 1988 SC 2181. Learned counsel for the Board, in reply, submits that by virtue of clause 43 of the bye-laws, framed by the Board itself in exercise of the powers under Section 83 of the Act, the power of the Board has been delegated to the President of the Board for certain matters. He particularly draws the attention of this Court to bye-laws 43 (r) and bye-laws 43 (zv) and submits that by these specific provisions power of the Board to settle a scheme as well Patna High Court CWJC No.23691 of 2012 (3) dt.18-01-2013 as to constitute a trust committee under Section 32 (1) of the Act has been delegated to the President.

Hence, pursuant to this delegation, the President has exercised powers and has passed the order. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in reply, submits that if the Act itself provides for exercise of the power by the Board no provision can be made in the bye-laws in conflict with the same. The bye-laws can only provide for smooth functioning of the Act in consonance with the provisions of the Act and not in conflict with the same. Having heard learned counsels for the parties, this Court is unable to accept the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. The provisions made in the bye-laws 43 (r) and (zv) cannot be treated as in conflict with the provisions of the Act. The Act does provide for exercise of certain powers by the Board, but, obviously, in view of the practical difficulty in holding the sittings of the Board each and every time for taking decisions, through the bye-laws, the power in such matters have been delegated to the President by the Board itself.

Thus, contrary to the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that this delegation of power under bye-laws 43 is for the smooth functioning of the Act. Hence, this Court finds that the President of the Board has exercised power as delegated to him under the Patna High Court CWJC No.23691 of 2012 (3) dt.18-01-2013 bye-laws and therefore the impugned order is within jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that the petitioner trust is a different trust. He submits that the Radhe Krishn Sah Sai Mandir trust is a public trust under the Radhe Krishn Pranami Mandir, Rajapur, Patna which admittedly a public trust. The functionaries of the petitioner trust have managed to register this trust with a similar name and are now trying to interfere in the management of the Radhe Krishn Sah Sai Mandir trust. Learned counsel for the petitioner seriously disputes this submission of learned counsel for the respondents.