JUDGMENT Mishra, J. Since the pleadings are complete, this writ application is being disposed of with consent of the parties at the admission stage itself. In this writ application, the petitioner has challenged the validity and correctness of the order, dated 21.6.1997 passed by the respondent Chairman, Bihar State Hindu Religious Trusts Board, Patna (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') by which in purported exercise of power under section 33 of the Bihar State Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') respondent no. 6, Satya Narayan Yadav, has been appointed as the Managing Trustee of Shri Shyamlal Trust, Khagaria, and also for quashing of the order, dated 21.10.97 passed by the respondent District Magistrate, Khagaria, whereby the respondent Sub-divisional Officer, Khagaria, was directed to ensure the making over charge of the Trust, in question, to the newly appointed Managing Trustee, Shri Satya Narayan Yadav, respondent no. 6 one copy of each of the aforesaid order is made Annexures-5 and 9, respectively, to the writ application. 2. The facts of this case, as made out in the pleadings, are as follows. One Shyam Lal Sahu, who was issueless, for the purpose of the benefit of the general public and in order to maintain his own reputation, expressed his desire to establish a Middle School for the benefit of the general public in the locality. Accordingly, he executed two deeds of gift- one in January, 1910 and another, subsequently, on 22nd December, 1916, dedicating his entire properties for the establishment and maintenance of a Middle School at Khagaria. In the first deed of gift, it has been envisaged that the same had been executed for the purpose of management of the said school. It has been alleged in the scheme itself that there will be a Board of Trustees comprising of 13 members to manage and look after the day-today administration of the school and he himself appointed as a Managing Trustee. By the subsequent deed of gift, dated 22nd December, 1916, he has donated his entire properties to the said Middle English School, Khagaria. A copy of the said deed of gift is Annexure-1 to this writ application. By the subsequent deed of gift, dated 22nd December, 1916, he has donated his entire properties to the said Middle English School, Khagaria. A copy of the said deed of gift is Annexure-1 to this writ application. According to the terms and conditions mentioned in the deed including the management of the school, in question, the said Shyam Lal Sahu continued as the Managing Trustee of the Trust for his whole life and after his death, other members of the Trust were appointed Managing Trustee in terms of the Scheme and the last one was the petitioner, Tej Bahadur Verma, who was appointed by the Board of Trustee in its meeting, dated 17.3.1996, strictly in accordance with the terms and condition of the deed of gift. It is mentioned in the deed of gift itself that after the death of the executant, the managing trustee shall be appointed by the members of the Trust by a majority decision. A copy of the resolution, dated 17.3.1996, is made Annexure-2 to this writ application. The petitioner is managing the affairs of the school since his appointment as Managing Trustee. The respondent Board by its letter, dated 21.4.1997, has directed the Ex-Managing Trustee, namely, Ram Udit Sahu to submit the budget of the school within the time mentioned therein. A copy of the said letter is made Annexure-3 to this writ application. Pursuant to the notice aforesaid, the Ex-Managing Trustee, Ram Udit Sahu, has sent a letter to the Board on 25.4.1997 stating, inter alia, that Shri Shyam Lal Rashtriya Vidyalaya Trust is out and out a private Trust and, as such, it does not come within the mischief of the provisions of the Act. A copy of the said letter is made Annexure-4 to this writ application. Surprisingly, all of a sudden, the respondent Board, in purported exercise of its power under section 33 of the Act, has appointed respondent no.6, Satya Narayan Yadav, as Managing Trustee on the basis of the application filed by the said Satya Narayan Yadav on 30th of May, 1997. The Respondent no. 3, the Special Officer of the Board sent a letter to the Ex-Managing Trustee, namely, Ram Udit Sahu, directing him to disclose the name of the Managing Trustee of the school, in question. The Respondent no. 3, the Special Officer of the Board sent a letter to the Ex-Managing Trustee, namely, Ram Udit Sahu, directing him to disclose the name of the Managing Trustee of the school, in question. Both the petitioner as well as the Ex-Managing Trustee, namely, Ram Udit Sahu filed an application on 18.10.1997 before the Deputy Collector-incharge, Khagaria, stating therein that on the basis of the forged and fabricated documents, the said Satya Narayan Yadav has been appointed as a Managing Trustee by the respondent Board. A copy of each of the said applications are made Annexures 8 and 8/1, respectively, to this writ application Satya Narayan Yadav, respondent no. 6, filed a written statement stating, inter alia, that since the Shyam Lal Rashtriya Vidyalaya Trust is registered with the Bihar State Hindu Religious Trust Board, the respondent Board has rightly appointed him as a Managing Trustee of the Shyam Lal Rashtriya Vidyalaya Trust, Khagaria. It is further stated that a suit being Title Suit No. 31 of 1997 is pending before the Munsif, Khagaria, wherein, one of the reliefs sought for is that the said school is a private educational Trust and will not come within the jurisdiction of the respondent Board. It is further alleged that when the deed of gift was executed by late Shyamlal Sahu in the year, 1910, neither the Board nor the Act was in existence and, as such, the petitioner cannot take advantage of the terms and conditions mentioned in the deed of gift. It was further alleged that since the petitioner was misusing and misappropriating the properties of the trust, in question- in collusion with others including the Ex-Managing Trustee, namely, Ram Udit Sahu, the respondent Board rightly passed the order appointing him (respondent no.6) as Managing Trustee of the Trust, in question. In sum and substance, the stand taken by the private respondent no. 6, Satya Narayan Yadav, is that the Trust, in question, is a public trust and since the petitioner, in collusion with others, was misappropriating the properties of the Trust, the Board in proported exercise of its power under section 33 of the Act has rightly appointed him as Managing Trustee of the Trust, in question. 6, Satya Narayan Yadav, is that the Trust, in question, is a public trust and since the petitioner, in collusion with others, was misappropriating the properties of the Trust, the Board in proported exercise of its power under section 33 of the Act has rightly appointed him as Managing Trustee of the Trust, in question. Similarly, a counter- affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Board stating, inter alia, that since the Trust, in question, is a registered Trust and, as such, the respondent is fully competent to interfere in the day-to-day management of the Trust, in question. It is further alleged that the impugned order passed by the respondent Board is perfectly legal and valid and cannot be questioned by the petitioner. 3. Mr. Tarakant Jha, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has assailed the impugned order passed by the respondent Board, firstly, on the ground that the petitioner having been validly appointed by the Board of Trustees in terms of the Scheme provided in the deed of gift itself, he cannot be removed by the respondent Board except in accordance with section 28(2) (h) of the Act. Secondly, since there was no vacancy on the post of Managing Trustee, section 33 of the Act cannot be resorted to by the respondent Board unless the petitioner is removed according to the provisions of the Act and it is then submitted that the Trust, in question, namely, Shyam Lal Rashtriya Vidyalaya Trust is out and out a private trust and, as such, will not come within the mischief of the provisions of the Act. It is lastly, submitted that the impugned order has been passed without giving an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard and or issuing any notice to him, and, as such, the impugned order is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the private respondent has, however, supported the order of the respondent Board and submits that since the petitioner, in collusion with the others, was misusing and misappropriating the properties of the Trust, the respondent Board has rightly, in purported exercise of its power under section 33 of the Act, appointed him as the Managing Trustee. Learned counsel for the private respondent has, however, supported the order of the respondent Board and submits that since the petitioner, in collusion with the others, was misusing and misappropriating the properties of the Trust, the respondent Board has rightly, in purported exercise of its power under section 33 of the Act, appointed him as the Managing Trustee. It is further alleged that since the Trust, in question, is registered with the Board, the Board is competent to pass any order for the better management of the Trust, in question, the Board has passed the impugned order in purported exercise of its power under section 33 of the Act. In the light of the aforesaid submissions, it has to be considered as to whether the impugned order passed by the respondent Board can be sustained in the eye of law. As stated above, the petitioner has been appointed as Managing Trustee of the Trust, in question, by the Board of Trust in accordance with the Scheme framed by the founder Trustee, namely, Shyam Lal Sahu. Admittedly, the petitioner has not been removed from the post of Managing Trustee in terms of section 28 (2) (h) of the Act. Unless and until, the Managing Trustee Is removed in accordance with the provisions of the Act, and/or the post falls vacant on account of death, resignation and in absence of any provision for appointment of such managing trustee in the deed of dedication or where there is a bona fide dispute as to who is to act as a Managing Committee and/or there is likelihood of breach of the peace, (sic) Section 33 of the Act is usefully quoted below- "33. Power to appoint temporary trustee.-(1) Where there is a vacancy in the office of trustee of a religious trust and there is no one competent to be appointed as trustee under the terms of the deed of such trusts or where there is a bonafide dispute as to the right of any person to act as trustee and in the opinion of the Board there is likelihood of breach of the peace or serious interference with the management of. the property of such trust, or where there is vacancy caused by the order of the Board passed under clause (h) of Sub-section (2) of Section 28 of this Act the Board may subject to any order of a competent Court appoint any person to act as trustee of the said trust for such period and upon such condition as it thinks fit. (2) In appointing a person as trustee under Sub-section (1), the Board shall if possible select a person of the section to which the last trustee belongs." As stated above, there was no occasion for the Board to take resort to section 33 of the Act for the purpose of appointing respondent no. 6 and a Managing Trustee of the Trust, in question. Prima facie, it appears that the school in question, will not come within the definition of the Religious Trust as defined in section 2(1) of the Act. Sub-section (1) of section 2 defines Religious Trust to mean any express or constructive trust created or existing for any purpose recognised by Hindu Law as religious, pious or charitable, but will not Include a private trust, endowment and/or school created for the worship of a family idol, de hors of general public, but since the title suit is pending wherein one of the reliefs sought for is for a declaration that the school, in question, is a private trust, I am not inclined to express any opinion as to the nature of the trust, in question. From a mere perusal of the order under challenge, and also from the pleadings of the parties, it appears that the impugned order has been passed without issuing notice to the petitioner and/or giving opportunity of being heard and, as such, the order is wholly illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. It will not be out of place to mention here that earlier also, the respondent Board had appointed one Bachchi Devi as Managing Trustee of the Trust, in question, which was challenged by the then Managing Trustee, namely, Ram Udit Sahu, which was quashed by a Division Bench of this Court by order, dated 24.8.94 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 11230 of 1993, a copy of which is made Annexure-10 to this writ application. For the reasons stated above, the order, dated 21.6.1997 and 21.10.1997 as contained in Annexures 5 and 9 are hereby quashed and this writ application is, accordingly, allowed. 4. Before I part with this order, it is made clear that any observation made in this order will not prejudice the case of the either parties in the pending title suit.