APARESH KUMAR SINGH,J. - (1.) The original petitioner preferred this writ petition questioning the constitution of trust committee of Hari Sabha Temple Trust by the Religious Trust Board under the provisions of Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act, 1950 alleging violation of the provisions of the Act of 1950. The impugned letter of constitution is dated 28th September, 2005 (Annexure 15) to the writ petition. The original petitioner has died during the pendency of the writ application. The applicant in I.A. No. 6370 of 2013 has sought substitution in his place claiming that Late Govind Prasad Sharma, Pujaricum Sewayat of Hari Sabha Mandir had adopted and accepted his son, the present applicant as Ghrihast-Chele after giving all sanskar according to Hindu Religion and Sanskriti, of Hari Sabha Mandir, Dumka for day to day worship of the deity of Hari Sabha Mandir and he had also authorised him to look after the management of Hari Sabha Mandir, Dumka.
(2.) The appointment letter issued by original petitioner, Govind Prasad Sharma in favour of his son the present applicant is enclosed as Annexure-31 stated to have been issued on 26th June, 2013 before his death on 16.7.2013. There are other legal heirs of the deceased petitioner being the widow, sons and daughters, who through I.A. No. 8201 of 2013 , have Given No Objection to the applicant being substituted in place of sole deceased petitioner and be treated as successor Pujari-cum-Shebait of Hari Sabha Mandir, Dumka.
(3.) The respondents-Jharkhand State Hindu Religious Trust Board, in its counter affidavit and reply to I.A. No. 3670 of 2013 vehemently opposed the claim of the applicant as Sewayat/Pujari and trustee of Hari Sabha Mandir, Dumka. It is alleged that the original petitioner had been illegally occupying the premises as a residential building residing with his family members and one of his son, namely, Purushottam Lal Sharma, who is practicing Advocate in Civil Court, Dumka has also been running his office Chamber in the said building without any authority of the competent authority of trust. The claim of the original petitioner had been seriously disputed by the respondents, so has been the application for substitution by the present applicant. It is their categorical assertion that the post of Sewayat/Pujari is not a hereditary post and the jurisdiction to appoint Sewayat/Pujari is vested with the Jharkhand State Hindu Religious Trust Board. Therefore, the present applicant cannot be entitled to be substituted in place of original petitioner, Govind Prasad Sharma. Board is only empowered to appoint fresh Sewayat/Pujari on the basis of recommendations made by the Trust Committee. The respondent State authorities have also through their counter affidavit defended the constitution of the Committee by the Religious Trust Board. They have also alleged that the original petitioner was never appointed as Shebait/Pujari. He has created hindrances in performance of rituals in the Temple and illegally used the premises as his residence. His son Purushottam Lal Sharma has used this premises as Advocate's office.;