JUDGMENT : ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for a direction to the respondents for quashing the notice dated 15.03.2015 issued under the signature of respondent no. 5 directing the petitioner to furnish the details about the moveable and immoveable assets within a period of five days of Vaneshwari Bhagwati Asthan, which, according to the petitioner, was constructed by his ancestors on private land and for cancelling the registration of Sri Sri 108 Vaneshwari Bhagwati Asthan situated at village-Bhandariso, Makranda issued under letter no. 1665 dated 02.03.2015. 2. By filing an interlocutory application the petitioner has also prayed to restrain the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Darbhanga and Block Development Officer, Manigachhi, Darbhanga to interfere with the affairs of the said Bhagwati Asthan where he is working as pujari. 3. The case of the petitioner is that his name was not entered as Shewait of Bhagwati Asthan which is situated at Khesra no. 6732. Thus, he filed Misc. Case No. 507 of 1992 under Section 106 of the B.T. Act for correction of name before the Land Bandobast Officer, Darbhanga, who passed an order in his favour, but the respondent nos. 5 and 6 on the basis of forged and fabricated documents created a trust in the name of Vaneshwari Bhagwati Asthan and got the same registered by the respondent no. 4. The further case of the petitioner is that the respondent no. 5 being Chairman of the Sri Sri 108 Vaneshwari Bhagwati Asthan issued notice to the petitioner to furnish details about moveable and immoveable properties of the said Bhagwati Asthan whereafter he approached the respondent authorities for cancellation of the registration of the trust as also for taking action against the erring officers but no positive response was given. 4. The respondents have filed their respective counter affidavits. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no. 4, the President of the Bihar State Board of Religious Trust, it is stated that the history of construction of temple is narrated in a Maithili magazine edited by Gajendra Thakur. 4. The respondents have filed their respective counter affidavits. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no. 4, the President of the Bihar State Board of Religious Trust, it is stated that the history of construction of temple is narrated in a Maithili magazine edited by Gajendra Thakur. The story of temple relates to the period of Aurangzeb (1658-1707 A.D.) when one of his nobles had a design to kidnap the beautiful daughter of a Brahmin Ban by name, but on the eve of the arrival of the noble, the self respecting daughter of Ban jumped into the pond and after sometime an idol was recovered from the pond. Thereafter, the people started worshipping that idol. The widow queen of Darbhanga Maharaj Lakshmeshwar Singh, namely, Lakshmivati constructed a grand palace like temple at the site in Vikram Samvat 1972 i.e. 1915 A.D. An inscription to this event is still in the temple. It is further stated that the petitioner has stated regarding ownership of his ancestors with respect to the land situated in khata no. 862 (new) kheshra no. 6855 (new) old khata no. 401 and old kheshra no. 4474. However, he has mentioned regarding construction of Vaneshwari Bhagwati Asthan on khata no. 936, kheshra no. 6732, which is not claimed to be petitioners own property or his ancestral property. It is further stated that the land possession certificates dated 15.10.2009 have been issued by the concerned authority in respect to Vaneshwari Bhagwati Asthan whereas none of the plots and khata numbers mentioned in the writ ;petition finds place in the land schedule of the certificates. The said facts also render the claim of the petitioner frivolous. 5. On the basis of the aforesaid stand of respondent no. 4, Mr. Shekhar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of availability of equally efficacious statutory remedy against the impugned order under sub-section (3) of Section 32 of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950 (for short the Act). 6. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that merely because there is an alternative remedy, the writ petition cannot be held to be not maintainable. He submitted that the statutory remedy is not efficacious. 7. 6. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that merely because there is an alternative remedy, the writ petition cannot be held to be not maintainable. He submitted that the statutory remedy is not efficacious. 7. It is true that availability of an alternative statutory remedy by itself may not operate as an absolute bar for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, there is no rule that the High Court should entertain a writ petition where an alternative remedy is available. The jurisdiction of writ is a special jurisdiction and the Court may refuse to exercise such jurisdiction when it is found that the petitioner has equally efficacious remedy available before other court/tribunal or authority. 8. Sub-section (3) of Section 32 of the Act stipulates as under:- “32(3) The trustee of, or any other person interested in, such trust may within three months from the date of the publication in the Official Gazette of the scheme so settled, modified or substituted instead of another scheme, as the case may be make an application to the District Judge for varying, modifying or setting aside the scheme; but subject to the result of such application, the order of the Board under sub-sections (1) and (2) shall be final and binding upon the trustee of the religious trust and upon every other person interested in such religious trust.” 9. Sub-section (4) of Section 32 of the Act stipulates that an order passed by the District Judge on any application made under sub-section (3) shall be final. 10. Since the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Board of Religious Trust, he has a statutory remedy under sub-section (3) of Section 32 of the Act, which is equally efficacious. I also find that several disputed questions of fact have been raised in the present writ petition, which cannot be decided in a summary proceeding in extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. 11. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file an application before the District Judge under the Act. I also find that several disputed questions of fact have been raised in the present writ petition, which cannot be decided in a summary proceeding in extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. 11. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file an application before the District Judge under the Act. In case an application under sub-section (3) of Section 32 of the Act is filed before the court of the District Judge within a period of one month from today and question of limitation arises therein, the learned District Judge shall condone the same keeping in view the fact that the petitioner had been pursuing the remedy before this Court.