JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. On repeated call, nobody has responded on behalf of the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 3580 of 2003 and it was pointed out that the prayer in the said writ petition is different from the other two writ petitions and it has been wrongly tagged with these two petitions being W.P. (C) No. 7800 of 2012 and W.P. (C) No. 6355 of 2023 and in view of that, W.P. (C) No. 3580 of 2003 be detached from these two writ petitions which will be decided separately. 2. Let this case being W.P. (C) No. 3580 of 2003 be placed before the Bench which is having the Roster. 3. W.P. (C) No. 7800 of 2012 has been assigned to this Court by the Minutes of Hon’ble the Chief Justice. 4. Since the controversy in W.P. (C) No. 7800 of 2012 is identical to W.P. (C) No. 6355 of 2023, the co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 14.05.2024 has directed to list W.P. (C) No. 6355 of 2023 along with W.P. (C) No. 7800 of 2012 and that is how, both these writ petitions have been listed today and accordingly, both these writ petitions are being heard on merit. 5. Heard Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 7800 of 2012 and W.P. (C) No. 6355 of 2023, Mr. Kunal Chandra Suman, learned counsel appearing in W.P. (C) No. 3580 of 2003, Mr. Divyam, learned A.C. to S.C. IV appearing in W.P. (C) No. 7800 of 2012 and Mr. Yogesh Modi the learned A.C to A.A.G. (1-A) appearing in W.P. (C) No. 6355 of 2023 on behalf of the respondent State, Mr. Nitin Kumar Pasari, the learned counsel appearing in W.P. (C) No. 3580 of 2003 on behalf of the respondent no. 5 as well as Mr. Bharat Kumar, the learned counsel appearing in W.P. (C) No. 7800 of 2012 and W.P. (C) No. 6355 of 2023 on behalf of the Jharkhand Hindu Religious Trust Board. 6. In W.P. (C) No. 7800 of 2012 the prayer is made for quashing of the registration certificate being letter no. 546 of 2011 dated 23.06.2011 as contained in Annexure-2 on the ground that it was without jurisdiction. 7. 6. In W.P. (C) No. 7800 of 2012 the prayer is made for quashing of the registration certificate being letter no. 546 of 2011 dated 23.06.2011 as contained in Annexure-2 on the ground that it was without jurisdiction. 7. In W.P. (C) No. 6355 of 2023, the prayer has been made for quashing of the order dated 20.10.2023 as contained in Annexure-10 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Hazaribagh in Miscellaneous Case No. 2 of 2021 and 24 of 2023. 8. Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 7800 of 2012 and W.P. (C) No. 6355 of 2023 submits that one Maida Kunwari, widow of late Hari Sahu and daughter of Govind Sahu owned a residential house situated at Boddom Bazar, Hazaribagh. In due course of time, she constructed a Mandir in a part of her residential house for the worship of their family idol, namely “Panchdevta” whereby idols of Radhakrishnaji, Shivji, Mahavirji, Suraj Maharaj Jee and Maharani Bhagwatiji are installed. He further submits that by way of registered deed dated 04.12.1901, said Maida Kunwari created a private religious trust for worship of the family idol and appointed one Mahant Sri Balramdasji and his disciple Mahant Mohandasji as Pujari and Caretakers of the said Radha Krishna Panch Mandir. By way of referring the said deed contained in Annexure-1, he submits that the said deed contains a clear recital that the same is being created as private religious trust for fulfillment of the desire of Vishnu Bhagwan, which she saw in her dreams. By way of referring the said deed further contained in Annexure-1 in W.P. (C) No. 7800 of 2012, he submits that it was recited therein that for the purpose of expenses of the festival and other religious functions the entire contributions will be made by the family members and no aid, offering and donations shall be taken from any other persons. He submits that it is also depicted therein that the rent, cess, etc. received by the family in lieu of their proprietary interest from the two Mauzas, namely, Mouza-Hindgiri and Mouza-Khurd amounting to Rs. 5,000/- per year would be used for the maintenance and other expenses. In this background, he submits that the private endowment has been created for worship of the family idol, namely “Panchdevta” by the deed dated 04.12.1901. received by the family in lieu of their proprietary interest from the two Mauzas, namely, Mouza-Hindgiri and Mouza-Khurd amounting to Rs. 5,000/- per year would be used for the maintenance and other expenses. In this background, he submits that the private endowment has been created for worship of the family idol, namely “Panchdevta” by the deed dated 04.12.1901. On this ground, he submits that the action on behalf of the State Hindu Religious Trusts is not in accordance with law as it is a private temple and not the public temple. He submits that Bihar State Hindu Religious Trust Act, 1950 was enacted for better administration of Hindu Religious Trust and for protection and preservation of properties appertaining to such Trust. By way of referring section 2(l) of the said Act, he submits that the Religious Trust has been defined therein. By way of drawing attention of the Court to section 19 of Jharkhand Hindu Religious Trust, he submits that the decision is required to be taken by the majority of votes whereas the impugned order contained in Annexure-2 has been passed by two members. He submits that in view of that there is clear violation of section 19 of the said Act. He took the Court to the section 38 of the said Act and submits that the Board is required to exercise the power that is prescribed therein. By way of referring the said section he submits that even assuming that the two persons have passed the said order they have not complied the mandatory condition made in section 38 of the said Act. He further submits that in absence of any scheme for the betterment of the same temple, it has been arbitrarily taken over by the said trust and that is further violation of section 32 of the said Act. He submits that in light of section 29, the dispute is required to be considered by the District Judge, however, that occasion has not come to move before the District Judge and in view of that, this order is without jurisdiction and without following the due process of law the said order has been passed and as such this Court can entertain these writ petitions even if alternative remedy is provided under the Act. He further submits that by order dated 8.2.2013, Annexure-2 was stayed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court which is still continuing. He further submits that by order dated 8.2.2013, Annexure-2 was stayed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court which is still continuing. He submits that during pendency of first writ petition, another order was passed by the S.D.O which is the subject matter in W.P. (C) No. 6355 of 2023. He submits that the stay was operating however another writ petition was filed by the petitioner for direction for repairing of 120 years old temple and the said was disposed of by the order dated 24.08.2023 in W.P. (C) No. 3230 of 2021 directing the petitioner to approach the S.D.O for redressal of the said grievance. He submits that pursuant to that, the S.D.O has passed the impugned order dated 20.10.2023 contained in Annexure-10 whereby in absence of any provision has taken over the administration of the said temple on the ground that the S.D.O is the President of Jharkhand Rajya Religious Trust Board. He submits that this order is further without jurisdiction and in view of that it has been challenged in W.P. (C) No. 6355 of 2023. On this ground, he submits that the impugned orders passed in both the cases may kindly be quashed. 9. Mr. Modi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State in W.P. (C) No. 6355 of 2023 submits that pursuant to the order of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 6355 of 2023 learned S.D.O. has passed such order. He submits that this order is in accordance with law and there is no illegality. 10. Mr. Divyam, learned A.C. to S.C. IV appearing in W.P. (C) No. 7800 of 2012 on behalf of the respondent State submits that it is general temple and rightly such order has been passed. 11. Mr. Bharat Kumar, the learned counsel appearing in W.P. (C) No. 7800 of 2012 and W.P. (C) No. 6355 of 2023 on behalf of the Jharkhand Hindu Religious Trust Board submits that the same was registered as public trust in the year 1963 contained in Annexure-A of the counter affidavit and in view of that both the orders have been rightly passed. He further submits that there is alternative remedy in light of section 29 of the said Act and in view of that, the petitioners are required to move before the competent court of civil jurisdiction. He further submits that there is alternative remedy in light of section 29 of the said Act and in view of that, the petitioners are required to move before the competent court of civil jurisdiction. He submits that one of the descendants of Maida Kunwari was also complying the direction of the Religious Trust. He submits that the Committee constituted by the Trust Board was complying the direction of the Religious Trust Board. On this ground, he submits that these writ petitions may kindly be dismissed. 12. In reply, Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in the concerned petitions, disputed the statement of Mr. Bharat Kumar, the learned counsel appearing in W.P. (C) No. 7800 of 2012 and W.P. (C) No. 6355 of 2023 on behalf of the Jharkhand Hindu Religious Trust Board and submits that there is no finding of any competent authority or of the Board that the said temple was a public temple. He submits that so far as one of the accounts document as brought on the record which has been filed by one Binod Kumar and he is the person appointed by them(Board) and in view of that, the family members of the petitioners have not submitted any document with regard to the balance sheet with the said Trust. 13. In view of above submissions of the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record including the registered deed of the year 1901. In the said deed, it is clearly stated that Maida Kunwari created a private religious trust for worship of the family idol and appointed one Mahant Sri Balramdasji and his disciple Mahant Mohandasji as Pujari and Caretakers of the said Radha Krishna Panch Mandir. In the said deed contained in Annexure-1 which contains a clear recital that the same is being created as private religious trust for fulfillment of the desire of Vishnu Bhagwan, which she saw in her dreams. In the Annexure-1 in W.P. (C) No. 7800 of 2012, it was recited therein that for the purpose of expenses of the festival and other religious functions the entire contributions will be made by the family members and no aid, offering and donations shall be taken from any other persons. It is also depicted therein that the rent, cess, etc. In the Annexure-1 in W.P. (C) No. 7800 of 2012, it was recited therein that for the purpose of expenses of the festival and other religious functions the entire contributions will be made by the family members and no aid, offering and donations shall be taken from any other persons. It is also depicted therein that the rent, cess, etc. received by the family in lieu of their proprietary interest from the two Mauzas, namely, Mouza-Hindgiri and Mouza-Khurd amounting to Rs. 5,000/- per year would be used for the maintenance and other expenses. 14. From the above, it transpires that the said temple was constructed for the purpose of Panchdevta of the said family. There is no finding or any document to suggest as to how that temple is being treated as ‘public trust’ and this Court is not making any comment with regard to that and that can be the subject matter by the competent authority or by competent court of civil jurisdiction. Section 2(l) Bihar (Jharkhand) Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950, which is the definition section and defines ‘religious trust’ which speaks as under: 2.(l) “Religious trust” means any express or constructive trust created or existing for any purpose recognized by Hindu Law to be religious, pious or charitable, but shall not include a trust created according to the Sikh religious or purely for the benefit of the Sikh community and a private endowment created for the worship of a family idol in which public are not interested. 15. Looking to the above, it is crystal clear that if the private endowment created for worship of family idol that will not come under the ‘public trust’ and to show that any private idol is public temple, a clear finding is required which is not there in the case in hand. 16. Section 19 of the said Act, speaks as under: “19. Decision to be by majority of votes: (1) Save as otherwise provided by this Act, every matter coming before the Board shall be decided by a majority of votes of the members present and voting in the meeting. (2) In the case of an equality of votes, the President shall have second or casting vote.” 17. Decision to be by majority of votes: (1) Save as otherwise provided by this Act, every matter coming before the Board shall be decided by a majority of votes of the members present and voting in the meeting. (2) In the case of an equality of votes, the President shall have second or casting vote.” 17. The above section clearly states that any matter coming to the Board that will be decided by the majority of votes of the members wherein the impugned order dated 23.06.2011 has been passed only by two persons and there is no endorsement further by any member of the Board and in view of that section 6 of the said Act, the Board’s members can be restricted up to eleven members. 18. Section 38 of the said Act speaks of exercise by President of powers of the Board which is as under: “Exercise by President of powers of Board - If any necessity arises for immediate action by the Board and a meeting of the Board cannot be arranged in time to take such action, the President may exercise any power that could be exercised under this Act by the Board, but shall at the next meeting of the Board make a report in writing of the action taken by him under this Section, and the reasons for taking such action, for confirmation of the action taken.” 19. In view of the above provision made under section 38 of the said Act, it is crystal clear that President may exercise power what he is further required to sent it to the meetings of the Board disclosing the reasons for taking such action and for confirmation of the Board. There is no document in the counter affidavit of the said Board to suggest that the provision made in section 38 of the said Act has been complied. 20. In view of above provision of the said Act, it is crystal clear that the impugned orders passed in W.P. (C) No. 7800 of 2012 as contained in Annexure-2 as well as the order passed by the S.D.O. contained in Annexure-10 in W.P. (C) No. 6355 of 2023 are without jurisdiction. 20. In view of above provision of the said Act, it is crystal clear that the impugned orders passed in W.P. (C) No. 7800 of 2012 as contained in Annexure-2 as well as the order passed by the S.D.O. contained in Annexure-10 in W.P. (C) No. 6355 of 2023 are without jurisdiction. The learned S.D.O. has relied on section 38 of the said Act and has stated that he is the President, however, the procedure of creating the Board is prescribed under 5 of the said Act and the section 5 of the said Act speaks as under: “5. Constitution and incorporation of the Board: (1) As soon as possible after this Act comes into force, there shall be established [by the Jharkhand Government] for the State of Jharkhand a Board to be called the Jharkhand State Board of Religious Trusts to discharge in regard to religious trusts other than Jain Religious Trusts the functions assigned to the Board by this Act. (2) There shall also be established by the Jharkhand Government a Board to be called the Jharkhand State Board of Swetamber Jain Religious Trusts and a Board to be called the Jharkhand State Board of Digambar Jain Religious Trusts to discharge respectively in regard to Swetamber Jain Religious Trusts and Digamber Jain Religious Trusts the functions assigned to the Board by this Act. (3) The Board shall be body corporate by the name of Jharkhand State Board of Religious Trusts or the Jharkhand State Board of Swetamber Jain Religious Trusts or the Jharkhand State Board of Digamber Jain Religious Trusts, as the case may be, and shall have perpetual succession and a common seal, with power to acquire and hold property, both movable and immovable, and to transfer any such property subject to the prescribed conditions and restrictions and shall by the said name sue and be sued.” 21. In view of the provisions made in section 5 of the said Act, which is with regard to constitution and incorporation of the Board, the procedure prescribed therein and that is to constitute the Board and there is no mention that the learned S.D.O will be the President of the Board and that can be created by the Government which is required to be gazetted in light of section 7 of the said Act and there is no gazette notification to that effect. Therefore, the order of the learned S.D.O passed in W.P. (C) No. 6355 of 2023 is without jurisdiction. 22. In view of the sections 7 and 8 of the said Act, it is not disclosed that the learned S.D.O. will be the President, however, that power lies with the Government and that too is required to be gazetted in the official gazette which is lacking in the case in hand. Further the said order of the learned S.D.O. passed pursuant to the order of the co-ordinate Bench in W.P. (C) No. 7800 of 2012 with regard to maintenance /repairing of the said temple and that order is silent on that point, but he has declared himself as the President of the said Board which is further illegal. As such, the order passed by the learned S.D.O is without jurisdiction. 23. In view of above discussion, both the orders are without jurisdiction as the law prescribed under the said Act has not been followed and the Annexure-1 clearly suggest that the said temple was for the purpose of family affairs. 24. It was pointed out in course of the argument that one Binod Kumar has filed the returns and he was one of the member appointed by the impugned action as contained in Annexure-2 of the Board and there is no document. 25. There is no doubt that if the alternative remedy is there, the writ Courts are very slow in passing the orders or entertaining the writ petitions. There is clear cut provision under Section 29 of the said Act that any dispute can be decided by the learned District Judge. However, in the case in hand, both the orders are without jurisdiction and in view of that, the writ can be maintained as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Whirlpool Corporation Limited v. Registrar of Trade Marks”, (1998) 8 SCC 1 . 26. In view of above facts, reasons and analysis, the Court comes to the conclusion that Annexure-2 being Registration Certificate Letter no. 546 of 2011 Dated 23.06.2011 in W.P. (C) No. 7800 of 2012 as well as Order dated 20.10.2023 as contained in Annexure-10 in W.P. (C) No. 6355 of 2023 are without jurisdiction. 27. As such, both being Registration Certificate Letter no. 546 of 2011 Dated 23.06.2011 in W.P. (C) No. 7800 of 2012 as well as Order dated 20.10.2023 as contained in Annexure-10 in W.P. (C) No. 6355 of 2023 are without jurisdiction. 27. As such, both being Registration Certificate Letter no. 546 of 2011 Dated 23.06.2011 as contained in Annexure-2 in W.P. (C) No. 7800 of 2012, and Order dated 20.10.2023 as contained in Annexure-10, in W.P. (C) No. 6355 of 2023 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Hazaribagh in Miscellaneous Case No. 2 of 2021 and 24 of 2023, are hereby, quashed. 28. W.P. (C) No. 7800 of 2012 and W.P. (C) No. 6355 of 2023 stand allowed in the above terms and disposed of. 29. Pending petition, if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.