Judgment Aftab Alam, J. 1. This writ petition involves a tripartite dispute concerning a trust called the Fatehpur Math situated at village Fatehpur under Fatehpur P.S. in the district of West Champaran. The parties to the dispute are the petitioner, the intervenors and the Bihar State Board of Religious Trusts. 2. According to the petitioner the Math was established by one Mathura Das and one of his desendants namely, Shatrughan Das started performing pooja path, Rajbhog there and no outsider was appointed as a Pujari. It is further the case of the petitioner that the aforesaid Shatrughan Das and his family members worshipped the family idols and no outsiders were allowed to perform puja etc. there. The public never had any access to the temple which was surrounded by the residential house and cattle shed etc. of the family of Mathura Das and his desendants. It is further stated that Shatrughan Das died in the year 1972 and on his death, he was succeeded by the present petitioner. From the writ petition it is not clear as to how and in what manner the petitioner succeeded Shatrughan Das. 3. The petitioner seeks to challenge the action of the Board in appointing the Anchala Adhikari Jogapatti as the temporary trustee of the trust till further orders. In this regard, it may be noted that initially an order was issued by letter no.4284, dated 4.12.1987 (Annexure-2) issued by the O.S.D. of the Board. In this letter it was stated that it had corhe to the knowledge of the Board that the properties of this trust which was a public trust being registered as such with the Board, were being wasted and mismanaged. The Board had, therefore, decided to appoint the Anchala Adhikari, Jogapatti as its temporary trustee with the object of protection and proper management of the trust properties. The aforesaid direction as contained in the letter, dated 4.12.1987 was later stayed by another letter, dated 23.12.1987 (Annexure-3) stating that the trustee had claimed that it was a private trust and the matter was under consideration before the Board. Later, by another letter, dated 13.7.1989 the Anchala Adhikari was advised to take immediate charge of the trust and its properties. It is the two letters, dated 4.12.1987 and 13.7.1989 that came under challenge in this writ petition. 4. Mr. Later, by another letter, dated 13.7.1989 the Anchala Adhikari was advised to take immediate charge of the trust and its properties. It is the two letters, dated 4.12.1987 and 13.7.1989 that came under challenge in this writ petition. 4. Mr. Yogendra Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner first submitted that the trust in question was a private trust and the Board had, therefore, no authority or jurisdiction to interfere in its affairs. In support of the contention that the trust was a private trust, learned counsel stated that earlier a prosecution was launched against Shatrughan Das by filing a complaint under section 67(1) of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act, 1950 on the grounds that Mahanth Shatrughan Das had failed to submit a copy of the budget for the year 1968- 69 to the Bihar State Board of Religious Trusts. The complaint gave rise to Case No. 773(2) of 1965/T.R. No.34 of 1970. But it ended into the acquittal of Mahanth Shatrughan Das on the grounds that there was no material to show that the trust in question was a public trust. 5. I might have been inclined to consider this aspect of the matter but for another circumstance which to my mind completely precludes the petitioner from questioning the status of the trust in question as a public trust. 6. As noted above, an intervention petition has been filed in this case on behalf of certain Chandrika Tiwary and Sahdeo Tiwary, who claim to be the successors in interest of the late Mathura Das who had established the Math. From the intervention petition it appears that the intervenors had filed T.S.No.88/75 seeking the control of the trust and claiming it to be a private trust. Resisting that suit filed by the intervenors the present petitioner filed in another suit being T.S.No.89 of 1975. In this suit the petitioner took the stand that deities were installed and temple was established by Mathura Das from contributions and subscriptions made by the members of the public and trust was a public trust. The two suit were tried together and by judgment and decree, dated 28.7.1980 passed by the lst Additional Sub Judge, Bettiah the suit of the petitioner was decreed. Against that decree the intervenors had preferred an appeal before this court being F.A.No. 775/80 which remains pending for hearing. The two suit were tried together and by judgment and decree, dated 28.7.1980 passed by the lst Additional Sub Judge, Bettiah the suit of the petitioner was decreed. Against that decree the intervenors had preferred an appeal before this court being F.A.No. 775/80 which remains pending for hearing. I got the records of F.A.No.775/80 brought for my perusal and from the judgment of the trial court in that suit it is clear that the present petitioner had taken the stand before the trial court that the trust was a public trust. Therefore, he can be no longer allowed to take the inconsistent stand that it was a private trust and the interference of the Board in its affairs was unauthorised. 7. Mr. Mishra then submitted that even assuming that it was a public trust a temporary trustee for its management could only be appointed under Section 31 of the Act and the pre-condition for the exercise of power under section 31 was that there should be a vacancy in the office of the trustee. Mr. Mishra submitted that the petitioner being the trustee, there could be no question of their being any vacancy in the office of the trustee and the petitioner could only be removed and replaced by any other trustee, in accordance with law. 8. I find the submission without any substance. Once proceeding on the basis that the trust in question is a public trust, the petitioner in order to claim being a trustee must show that he was duly appointed or recognised as trustee by the Board. There is not a scrap of paper to substantiate the petitioners claim in this regard. All that is there is a three line statement in paragraph 8 of the writ petition stating that after the death of Shatrughan Das in the year 1972 the present petitioner succeeded him. There being absolutely no evidence that the petitioner was ever appointed or recognised by the Board as the trustee of the trust in question, he cannot be heard against the action of the Board in appointing the Anchala Adhikari as the temporary trustee for the protection and proper management of the trust properties. 9. I, therefore, find no merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed but without any order as to costs.