SRI SRI SOMESHWAR NATH MAHADEO TEMPLE THROUGH IT‟S v. THE STATE OF BIHAR

Mr. Shivajee Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner would then contend that Annexure-5 even after the withdrawal of the Annexure-7, the notification would survive. The question however would that if Annexure-5 is only a noting in the file can the same be assailed in a writ petition? Annexure-5 in fact led to a formal order contained in Annexure-7 and when the same has been withdrawn, nothing survives by way of Annexure-5 which can be quashed by this Court. In the opinion of this court, the writ application itself was not maintainable because it was filed only against Annexure-5 which was as noted above is a noting of the file. Such noting of the file is no value in the eye of law. Reference in this connection may be made to the case of Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab and another reported in AIR 1963 Supreme Court 395. 5 That being so, this court must hold that the writ application has already outlived its purpose. At this stage Mr. Pandey would submit that the Board has no power to interfere with the affairs of the trust in question as it is not a public trust. This Court would not like to go into such academic question well beyond the scope of this writ petition. Moreover if the question of nature trust would arise in future, the remedy for the concerned person including the petitioner will be before the Board which under Section 28(2)(U) has been vested power to decide such a question. The issue as to whether Mr. Shyam Narain Pandey, the ex-President of the Board had the power to decide the issue of the nature of trust or his order holding that the petitioner is a private trust stands rebutted not only in view of the documents brought on record in supplementary counter affidavit by the Board denying Mr. Pandey to have ever passed such an order, but also on the competence of Mr. Pandey to do so because such power was never vested in the President of the Board till the amendment in the Act was made in the year 2007. That being so, the aforementioned document also is of no avail and on that basis, the petitioner can not get a relief which was never prayed by him in this writ application. That being so, this application is wholly misconceived as it has become infructuous on account of withdrawal of the notification dated 30.12.2000 as contained in Annexure-7. Consequently the interim order dated 17.1.2003 6 in this case is hereby vacated and the writ application itself is dismissed as infructuous. Narendra/ ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J. )