Patna High Court
Mahanth Remash Giri @ Ramesh Giri vs The State Of Bihar on 9 May, 2024
Bench: Chief Justice, Harish Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.236 of 2024
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12252 of 2022
===============================================
Mahanth Ramesh Giri @ Ramesh Giri S/o and Chella of Sadanand Giri, R/o Bodh
Gaya Math, Bodh Gaya, District-Gaya (Bihar).
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through its Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna.
2. The Bihar State Religious Trust Board through its President, Vidyapati Marg,
Patna-800001.
3. The Superintendent of Bihar State Religious Trust Board, Vidyapati Marg, Patna-
800001.
4. The District Magistrate, District-Gaya (Bihar).
5. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Gaya (Bihar).
6. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar Gaya (Bihar).
7. The Deputy Collectgor, Land Reforms, Sadar Gaya (Bihar).
8. The Executive Officer, Bodh Gaya, District-Gaya (Bihar).
9. Mahanth Triveni Giri Chela Mahanth Dhanshuk Giri, resident of Bodh Gaya Math,
P.S. Gaya Town, District-Gaya.
... ... Respondent/s
============================================================
with
CIVIL REVIEW No. 46 of 2022
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16795 of 2021
============================================================
Mahanth Remash Giri @ Ramesh Giri Son/Chela of Sadanand Giri Resident of Bodh
Gaya Math, Bodh Gaya, District Gaya, Presently Mahanth of Bodh Gaya Math,
Bodh Gaya, District- Gaya.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna.
2. The Bihar State Religious Trust Board, Patna through its President, Vidyapati Marg,
Patna-1.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.236 of 2024 dt.15-05-2024
2/21
3. The President, Bihar State Religious Trust Board, Patna, Vidyapati Marg, Patna-1.
4. The Superintendent, Bihar State Religious Trust Board, Patna, Vidyapati Marg,
Patna-1.
5. The District Magistrate, Gaya, District Gaya.
6. The Additional Collector, Gaya, District Gaya.
7. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Gaya, District Gaya.
8. Baliram Mishra Son of Late Sukhdeo Mishra Resident of Nevtapur, Bodhgaya,
District Gaya, Previously secretary of the Bodh Gaya Math, Bodh Gaya, District
Gaya.
9. Triveni Giri Son/Chela of Mahanth Dhansukh Giri Resident of Bodh Gaya Math,
Gaya, District Gaya.
10. Dindayalu Giri Son/Chela of Mahanth Harihar Giri Resident of Bodh Gaya Math,
Bodh Gaya, District Gaya.
11. Ramesh Prasad Singh @ Lulan Singh Son of not known to the petitioner Resident
of Village Kendui, District Gaya, Previously Vice Chairman of Bodh Gaya Nagar
Panchayat, Bodh Gaya, District Gaya.
12. Ram Chandra Prasad Yadav Son of Not known to the petitioner Resident of A.H.
Colony, PS Bodh Gaya, District Gaya, Previously Mukhiya of Bodhgaya
Grampanchayat, District Gaya.
... ... Opposite Party/s
===============================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Y.V. Giri, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Pranav Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Alok Kumar Agrawal, Advocate
Ms. Shrishti Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Arun Kumar Bhagat AC to AAG-12
For Respondent Nos. 2&3 : Mr. Ganpati Trivedi, Sr. Advocate
For Respondent No. 9 : Mr. Rajiv Singh, Advocate
Mr. Mohit Ray, Advocate
Mr. Shantanu Kumar, Advocate
===============================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 15-05-2024
Undaunted by the cost imposed for suppression of facts
in the writ petition; which the writ-petitioner willingly
Patna High Court L.P.A No.236 of 2024 dt.15-05-2024
3/21
undertook to pay on the warning issued by the learned Single
Judge to proceed under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure
Code, the writ-petitioner is in appeal from the judgment in the
writ petition.
2. We have our own doubts whether Section 340
Cr.P.C., could be invoked as against suppression of facts
alleged, but the writ-petitioner feared so and accepted the
factum of suppression and offered to pay cost for absolution
from such criminal procedure.
3. In the writ petition from which the LPA arises the
petitioner, a Sadhu attached to the Bodh Gaya Math challenged
the order dated 06.06.2022, by which the Bihar State Board of
Religious Trust (for brevity 'the Board'), anointed the petitioner
as a Patron and further, in exercise of the power under Section
33 of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950 (for brevity
'the Act'); considering the existence of disputes in relation to
the management of the properties of the Math and inter-party
disputes regarding the Mahanthship, decided to form a
Committee for better administration and financial management
as well as for protection of the properties of the Math. For the
purpose of constituting a Committee, proposal of names were
called for and till the new Committee was constituted the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.236 of 2024 dt.15-05-2024
4/21
existing Committee was allowed to continue. The existing
Committee was appointed by an earlier order of the Board dated
27.07.2021
and notified on 29.07.2021.
4. Against the earlier appointment of the Committee
the petitioner himself had challenged the orders, albeit
unsuccessfully in CWJC No. 16795 of 2021 (Mahanth Ramesh
Giri @ Ramesh Giri v. The State of Bihar & Ors.). One of the
suppressions alleged was insofar as the said judgment dated
17.01.2022 of the Division Bench having not been referred to in
the present writ petition. The review filed is against the earlier
judgment of the Division Bench.
5. Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned Senior Counsel appeared for
the appellant/writ petitioner. It was argued that the allegation of
suppression was untenable since though the earlier proceedings
before a Division Bench was not stated specifically in the
memorandum of writ petition; the impugned order, produced in
the writ petition, clearly recited the earlier proceedings. The
other allegation of suppression of an affidavit filed and
cancellation of Power of Attorney are all subsequent to the filing
of the writ petition from which the LPA arises, the writ petition
having been registered on 24.08.2022.
6. According to the learned Senior Counsel the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.236 of 2024 dt.15-05-2024
appellant was appointed by the Board itself which appointment
was on the request of the 9th respondent and others by
Annexure-1 dated 14.11.2013. By Annexure-2 dated 20.02.2014
the Board had recognized and appointed the appellant as
Mahanth for a period of one year. It is also specified in
Annexure-2 that if there was no objection to the appointment of
Mahanth within the period of one year then the appellant would
effectively remain as a permanent Mahanth. The President of
the Board reconstituted the Trust by himself, which was
challenged successfully in CWJC No. 1491 of 2020 (Mahanth
Ramesh Giri @ Ramesh Giri v. The State of Bihar and Others)
and the appellant continued as a Mahanth. Later to that on
09.04.2021 by Annexure-4 the Board sought explanation from
the appellant about the allegation of illegal activities of persons
who were authorized by the appellant. On 27.07.2021 an order
was passed appointing a Committee which was notified on
29.07.2021. The said order and notification were confirmed by
this Court in CWJC No. 16795 of 2021 against which the
review is filed.
7. As far as the review is concerned, it was argued that
though the impugned order was held to be under Section 33 of
the Act; in the order there was a reference to Section 32 of the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.236 of 2024 dt.15-05-2024
Act and there was no ingredient available under Section 33 of
the Act. There was absolutely no cause for invoking Section 33
of the Act. The writ petitioner therein, who is the present
appellant was competent to be appointed as a trustee; who was
appointed as early as in the year 2014, continued without
interruption and there was no dispute raised or existing as to the
appointment of a trustee within one year of his appointment. In
that circumstance there was no vacancy as contemplated in
Section 33 of the Act nor is there any ingredient available to
remove the duly appointed Mahanth under Section 28(2)(h) of
the Act. The absence of a reference to and non-application of
Section 33 of the Act is urged to be an error apparent on the face
of record.
8. We will first deal with the review petition against
the judgment of the Division Bench dated 17.01.2022; placed
before us since both the Judges, are now not sitting in this
Court. Therein also, the appellant/writ petitioner had raised the
specific contention that he was elected to Mahanthship and
continued uninterruptedly thereafter. The Division Bench
noticed that on 13.10.2020 the President of the Board had
reconstituted the Trust of the Math which was challenged in
CWJC No. 1491 of 2020 (Mahanth Ramesh Giri @ Ramesh
Patna High Court L.P.A No.236 of 2024 dt.15-05-2024
Giri v. The State of Bihar and Others). The said writ petition
was allowed on 04.03.2021 since the Board itself was not in
existence and in its absence, the President could not have
assumed jurisdiction to pass the order. While holding the order
passed by the President to be illegal, the court all the same
permitted the President of the Board to proceed to exercise its
power and act as per the statutory provisions; since after the
impugned order, while the writ petition was pending, a Board
had been duly constituted. It was by virtue of the liberty
reserved that a notice was issued raising specific allegations
against the writ petitioner leading to the order dated 27.07.2021
and the notification dated 29.07.2021 which were impugned in
CWJC No. 16795 of 2021.
9. Learned Division Bench specifically noticed three
contingencies under which Section 33 could be invoked; (i)
when a vacancy arises and there is none competent to be
appointed, (ii) there exists a bonafide dispute as to the right of
any person to act as a trustee and the Board is of the opinion that
there could be likelihood of breach of peace or serious
interference with the management of the property of the Trust
and (iii) when there is a vacancy created under Section 28(2)(h)
of the Act.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.236 of 2024 dt.15-05-2024
10. M/s Agrawal Dharamshala & Ors. v. Bihar State
Board of Religious Trust & Ors.; 1988 (1) PLJR 212 (D.B.)
also held that such power can be exercised in three situations.
One, where there is a vacancy in the office of the trustee and
there is no one competent to be appointed; second, when a bona
fide dispute as to the right of any person to act as a trustee arise
and in the opinion of the Board there is likelihood of breach of
peace or serious interference with the management of property,
and lastly when there is a vacancy caused by the order of the
Board passed under Clause (2) (h) of Section 28 of the Act.
Therein, without removing the trustee, the Special officer
appointed the Anchal Adhikari as trustee of the Dharmasala.
Here there is no question arising of removal, since the appellant,
but for being appointed temporarily as a Mahanth in the year
2014, was never appointed as a Mahanth permanently. The
action of the President of the Board in appointing the
Committee was found to be perfectly within jurisdiction and in
the factual situation, eminently proper. The decision cited was
found to be inapplicable since the dictum of the cited decision
was insofar as the power to invoke Section 33 of the Act, being
unavailable in the said cases since there was no vacancy in the
office of the trustee and also for reason of absence of an order
Patna High Court L.P.A No.236 of 2024 dt.15-05-2024
passed under Section 28(2)(h) of the Act. That power under the
specific provision, it was held, could be exercised only after the
removal of the trustee under the Section 28(2)(h). It was held
that the Board in that case had not exercised power under
Section 33; with reference to Section 28(2)(h) of the Act.
11. The decision relied on in Ishwari Prasad
Jhunjhunwala Vs. Bihar Religious Trust Board; AIR 1989 Pat
349 was also held to be inapplicable since it followed Agrawal
Dharamshala, the facts being identical of the incumbent trustee
not having been removed before appointing the SDO as the
temporary trustee. Mahanth Motilal Goswami Vs. State ;AIR
1993 Pat 171(D.B) was a decision in which the writ petitioners
appointment as temporary trustee by the Special Officer was
interfered with since on the date of his appointment there was a
duly elected Mahanth; by virtue of which there was no vacancy
in the said office and the appointment of the petitioner was said
to be on the recommendation of the Chief Minister; a procedure
alien to the statute. The decision of the Board in the present
case; CWJC No. 16795 of 2021, of appointment of a Committee
under Section 33 was found to be perfectly in order.
12. The order impugned in CWJC No. 16795 of 2021
indicates that even at that point there were rival claims to the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.236 of 2024 dt.15-05-2024
Mahanthship, three in number; the writ petitioner, the 9 th
respondent and one another lady. It was noticed that
appointment of the writ petitioner was only temporary and
though it was recited in the order that if no objections are
received, the Mahanth would be appointed permanently; there is
no such appointment on record. Various types of allegations
were raised, starting from the year 2016, against the writ
petitioner which was put to the writ petitioner and hearing
conducted. It was noticed that the property of the Math had been
misused and the President had passed an order removing the
Mahanth which was challenged successfully before the Court
but with liberty reserved to the Board to proceed further which
resulted in the impugned proceeding. It was noticed that there
was serious dispute regarding the appointment of Mahanth and
due to the same the property of the Math is not being properly
administered. It was also stated that untoward incidents cannot
be ruled out occasioning disturbance of peace within the Math
and between the parties. The details of the immovable assets of
the Math not being clear, on the request of the parties the matter
was adjourned; but for better management of the Math a
Committee of administrative officials was constituted.
13. We are of the opinion that the order clearly
Patna High Court L.P.A No.236 of 2024 dt.15-05-2024
indicates that there was a bonafide dispute regarding the person
capable of being anointed as Mahanth. The 9th respondent; while
the order of the President was pending consideration before the
learned Single Judge was appointed as the Mahanth. This,
according to the 9th respondent was by the congregation of the
Sadhus; which also in the impugned order, was found to be not
recognized by the Board. The order also speaks of likelihood of
breach of peace and serious interference with the management
of the property. There is clear indication from the impugned
order in CWJC No. 16795 of 2021 that there were sufficient
grounds to invoke Section 33 of the Act.
14. We do not find ourselves persuaded to entertain
the review petition on the further ground that there is no
reference to Section 33 in the impugned order. The absence of a
reference to the statutory provision invoked or even misquoting
of such a provision would not vitiate the order. The reliance
placed on Usha Bharti vs. State of U.P (2014) 7 SCC 663 is
absolutely not relevant in the facts of this case since there is no
accidental mistake or misconception of fact or law discernible in
the judgment sought to be reviewed. We find the review to be
not maintainable and reject the same.
15. Now, we come to the LPA wherein, the order
Patna High Court L.P.A No.236 of 2024 dt.15-05-2024
challenged is of 06.06.2021.
16. Mr. Y.V. Giri learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the appellant reiterated that the appellant was continuing as
Mahanth from 2014 and there is no question of invocation of
Section 33 of the Act on the ground stated. There is no question
of appointment as a Patron and formation of a new Committee.
17. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Ganpati Trivedi,
appearing for the Board asserts that there was suppression of the
factum of the earlier writ petition having been dismissed. It is
also argued that the Board had validly passed the impugned
order and as of now a Committee also has been formed. There
were wide spread allegations of the appellant having acted
against the interest of the Math and when they were put to the
appellant, he accepted the primacy of the 9 th respondent to
assume the Mahanthship of the Math. The appellant cannot be
allowed to approbate and reprobate.
18. Learned Counsel Mr. Rajiv Singh, appeared online
for the 9th respondent and referred to the counter affidavit filed
by the 9th respondent and various documents produced therein,
where the appellant had unequivocally accepted the
appointment of the 9th respondent as the trustee. There are
serious allegations against the appellant and he has clearly acted
Patna High Court L.P.A No.236 of 2024 dt.15-05-2024
against the interest of the Math and abdicated his duties and
powers by executing power-of-attorney in favour of third
parties, putting the very interests of the Math to jeopardy and its
properties to waste.
19. From the records and from the arguments itself,
we are inclined to hold that the appellant cannot claim that he
has been continued without any interruption from 2014; only on
the ground that there was no objection filed within the one-year
temporary period for which he was appointed. It is an admitted
fact that there was no order passed by the Board anointing the
appellant as the Mahanth after the temporary appointment for
one year ceased. It is also too late in the day to assert
continuance as a Mahanth from the year 2014, especially since
at least by the earlier proceedings on 27.07.2021, a Committee
was appointed, and the appellant's challenge to that order stood
rejected. As per the impugned order in the present writ petition,
from which this appeal arise, the Board has attempted to form a
new Committee, appointed the 9th respondent as the Mahanth
and also the appellant as the Patron.
20. We have also looked at the specific contention
taken by the Board and the 9th respondent with respect to the
acquiescence of the appellant to the Mahantship of the 9th
Patna High Court L.P.A No.236 of 2024 dt.15-05-2024
respondent. The appellant had further suppressed the fact that an
F.I.R. was registered against the appellant for having executed a
Power of Attorney in the name of a third party. An Anticipatory
Bail Application was filed by the appellant in the said case
wherein he had accepted the fact that the 9th respondent has been
appointed as Mahanth by the President of the Board. The
appellant's contention before the Writ Court was also that he
had rescinded the Power of Attorney; which in fact is an
admission of his having executed a Power of Attorney in favour
of the third party. Alongwith the counter affidavit is produced an
affidavit accompanying a bail application filed by the appellant
herein. In paragraph no. 15, it has been specifically stated that
the applicant has reached a settlement with the 9 th respondent
and recognized him as Nyasi Dhari of the Temple; which
settlement is also produced as Annexure-7 alongwith that
affidavit.
21. Paragraph no. 5 of the affidavit dated 08.02.2023
specifically indicates the appellant having accepted the
Mahanthship of the 9th respondent. The next document produced
as Annexure-R/10 at page 53 of the counter affidavit of the 9 th
respondent; which is a cancellation of a Power of Attorney
executed in favour of one Om Bharati @ Omkaranand Giri. The
Patna High Court L.P.A No.236 of 2024 dt.15-05-2024
said deed of cancellation accepts categorically that the
appointment made on 20.02.2014 of the appellant as Mahanth
was temporary and was never made permanent. At page 79 of
the counter affidavit Annexure-R/11 accepts that the dispute
with respect to the appointment of the Trustee of the Bodh Gaya
Monastery, has been resolved by the Board on 06.06.2022
recognizing the incumbent Sri Triveni Giri as the Mahanth and
existing Chairman of the Bodh Gaya Monastery. The appellant
again by the document acknowledged and accepted the order of
the Board dated 06.06.2022 and the certificate dated 26.07.2022
issued in this regard. The appellant in the said document also
submits that he has become old and completely unable to walk
and there are third parties taking illegitimate advantage of his ill
health and old age.
22. We are also shown a document produced by the
Board at Page-78 of its counter affidavit, again a
communication of the appellant herein. This again speaks of the
image of the Monastery having been tarnished in the recent
years due to mutual differences and in the presence of the Saints
of the Akhada Council and the Mahatmas of the Saint Society
the disputes having been resolved amicably. The appellant states
that he is living in Kashi Monastery and Sri Triveni Giri, the 9 th
Patna High Court L.P.A No.236 of 2024 dt.15-05-2024
respondent and one Vivekanand Giri is looking after his
comforts also. The above said communication was addressed by
the appellant himself to the Chairman of the Board.
23. We have also gone through the impugned order
which speaks of the rival claims raised by the 9th respondent, the
appellant and the lady who was referred to in the earlier instance
also. Serious allegations have been raised against the appellant
herein regarding mismanagement of the properties. The
appellant himself had conceded that he had issued a Power of
Attorney in the name of another, thus abdicating his powers and
duties as a Mahanth; if at all he had been continuing so at that
point of time, which continuance we have already held cannot
be accepted.
24. Having gone through the order and also the
intention being the protection of the properties of the Bodh
Gaya Math, in the wake of serious differences and rival claims
as to who would occupy the seat of the Mahanth, which order
also highlight the fact that the appellant is incapable of holding
the position of Mahanth in properly administering the Trust, we
are of the opinion that no interference is called for.
25. There is a further argument raised on the order
having been passed without quorum; since it is passed by the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.236 of 2024 dt.15-05-2024
President and one other member while the minimum quorum as
evident from the Act is four members.
26. The learned Senior Counsel has also relied on a
number of decisions to canvass the case of the appellant.
Mahanth Vijay Das. vs. The State of Bihar 2003 (4) PLJR
710 was a case of removal of the trustee by the
Chairman/President of the Board. The contention of the Board
was that the President has exercised the power under Section 38
& 39 of the Act, the former in circumstances of immediate
action required and the latter in special circumstances where the
Board has delegated its power. The emergent need, it was held
vanished when the earlier order of removal, without waiting for
the show-cause of the petitioner having been challenged in a
writ petition, which was pending before this court and later the
order interfered with and remitted back for fresh consideration.
As far as special circumstances under section 39, it was found
that the President could act only in those special circumstances
for which the delegation was made by the Board as has been
done under Bye-law 43 of the Religious Trust Board's Bye-laws
framed under Section 83 of the Act. The appointment of a
temporary trustee, though was delegated to the President, in the
cited case there was no vacancy and the incumbent trustee was
Patna High Court L.P.A No.236 of 2024 dt.15-05-2024
removed; which power was not expressly delegated by the
Board was the finding.
27. Swami Jai Krishnacharya vs. Bihar State Board
of Religious Trust 2000(4) PLJR 645(DB) was again a case of
removal and appointment by the President; which was found to
be incompetent under Bye Law 43 (zii). We have to emphasize
that in the present case there is no removal since, after the
temporary period of one year expired for which period the
appellant was appointed, there was no further appointment.
There cannot be any deemed appointment on the basis of the
recitals in the order of temporary appointment. Here the
President has exercised his powers under clauses (r) & (zv) of
Bye-law 43.
28. The contention taken by the appellant against the
removal and the power of the President to frame a scheme was
answered by the learned Single Judge with reference to the
decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Satyeshwaranand
Jyoti Chela of Late Hariharanand Jyoti v. The State of
Bihar & Ors. (CWJC No. 6724 of 2020). The reliance placed
on CWJC No. 1491 of 2020 (Mahanth Ramesh Giri @
Ramesh Giri v. The State of Bihar and Others), another writ
petition filed by the appellant himself, wherein the removal by
Patna High Court L.P.A No.236 of 2024 dt.15-05-2024
the President was interfered with only on the ground that there
was no proper constitution of the Board, was not applicable in
the present factual scenario. As of now, the constitution of a
Committee was after the Board was constituted.
29. We extract here under paragraph nos. 8 & 9 of
Satyeshwaranand Jyoti (supra) :-
"8. Having considered rival submissions
made on behalf of the parties on the question as to
whether the President of the Board has the authority to
frame scheme under Section 32 of the Act, we need to
take note of the fact that the Bye-Laws have been
framed in exercise of power under Section 83 of the
Act. Section 83 of the Act confers upon the Board,
power to make Bye-Laws consistent with the Act or the
Rules made thereunder for any matter necessary to
carry into effect the objects of the Act. Sub-section (2)
of Section 88 delineates the items in respect of which
the Board may make Bye-Laws, which includes
allocation of duties to the President and the Members.
We have no hesitation in recording our opinion that the
said Bye-Laws have the statutory force, having been
made in exercise of the statutory provision under
Section 83 of the Act. Bye-Law 43 delineates powers
and duties of the Board that can be exercised and
performed by the President. Clause (r) of Bye-Law 43
in no uncertain terms confers such power on the
President of the Board to settle scheme for the proper
administration of a religious trust. Further, clause (zv)
confers upon the President power to constitute a trust
committee under Section 32(1) of the Act. For ready
reference Clause (r) and Clause (zv) of Bye-Law 43 are
Patna High Court L.P.A No.236 of 2024 dt.15-05-2024
being reproduced hereinbelow: -
"43.
xxx xxx xxx
(r) to settle schemes for proper administration of
religious trust;
xxx xxx xxx
(zv) may constitute a trust committee under Section
32(1) of the Act"
9. On a plain reading of Clause (r) and clause (zv) of
Bye-Law 43, the impugned notification dated
04.09.2021 issued by the President of the Board cannot
be said to be completely unauthorized, requiring this
Court's interference on that ground."
30. The President by the above extracted rules has the
power to settle schemes for proper administration and also to
constitute a trust committee. The power invoked under Section
33 is also in the wake of the rival claims to the post of Mahanth
and there being real and present apprehension of breach of
peace and as also interference with the management of the
properties of the Math. Neither can the appellant said to have
been continued permanently from 2014 nor was the 9 th
respondent's anointment by the Sadhus, as claimed by him,
accepted by the Board. Hence there is no application of Section
28(2)(h), since there exists a vacancy in the post of Mahanth.
31. It is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel
for the Board that now a full-fledged Committee has been
Patna High Court L.P.A No.236 of 2024 dt.15-05-2024
constituted.
32. We find no merit in the LPA and the cost would
also remain untouched, since the appellant/writ petitioner agreed
to pay it. In any event despite his acquiescence and his own
declaration of incapacitation to carry on the duties of the
Mahanth; the appeal is relentlessly pursued. The LPA stands
dismissed.
33. Ordered accordingly.
(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ)
I agree.
(Harish Kumar, J)
(Harish Kumar, J)
ranjan/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 10.05.2024
Uploading Date 15.05.2024
Transmission Date NA
