Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) Heard counsel for the parties.
(2.) Petitioner aggrieved by an office order, dated 14.9.2015 issued by the Respondent No. 4-Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dhalbhum, Jamshedpur bearing Memo No. 3260 (Annexure-13), has approached this Court. By the impugned order, District Superintendent of Education, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur was deputed as Executive Magistrate to maintain law and order with the assistance of police force in the matter of removal of unauthorized occupation of certain rooms of hostel and office of Sidu Kanu Siksha Niketan Trust, Baliguma, Mango, Jamshedpur, acting on the report of the Additional Collector, East Singhhbum, Jamshedpur vide letter, dated 24.8.2013 and also letter of the Respondent No. 4 itself dated 18.07.2014. The impugned order refers to some dispute between the petitioner and their associates in trying to disrupt the functioning of the school. It conveys the intent to maintain law and order and educational environment in the school. The Respondent No. 6 is the person with whom there is a subsisting dispute over the trust created on 24.05.1984 over which, school is said to be existing.
(3.) Petitioner contends that the deponent of the writ petition is the chairman of the said Trust which runs Sidu Kanu Siksha Niketan Middle and High School, Dimna, Mango, Jamshedpur. It is the contention of the petitioner that by Resolution dated 12.06.2011 and 04.12.2011, Board of Trustees was extended by inclusion of the deponent Mangal Murmu, Kshetra Mohan Tudu, Sandhya Kumari and Mona Tudu as Treasurer. Two of the Trustees were authorized to operate the bank account. Petitioner contends that after the death of Ganesh Sao, appointment of one Sandhya Sao was made as the President of the Trust by Resolution dated 20.02.2012. There are certain issues in relation to the suit property with M/s. Tata Steel, referred to in the averment of the writ petition. Petitioner alleges interference of Respondent No. 6 in the Trust fund. It also alleges that inclusion of Respondent No. 6 in the Board of Trustees was illegal. On such knowledge, the United Bank of India was also requested to stop the transaction by any Member of the Trust. Petitioner contends that the Board was reconstituted on 07.08.2013 and registered. A Title Suit No. 95/2013 was preferred before the Learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jamshedpur, praying for permanent injunction against the defendant from operating the bank account of the Trust or to do any detrimental act against the welfare of the Trust. According to the petitioner, said suit is still pending. Petitioner also contends that another suit was filed by Kshetra Mohan Tudu against the Respondent No. 6, seeking permanent injunction upon the Respondent No. 6 from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff and reconstitution of the body of the Trust. That Title Suit No. 161/2013 is also pending for adjudication before the Learned Civil Judge, Senior Division-6, Jamshedpur. He also contends that the Title Suit No. 125/2013 has been filed by the petitioner for declaring reconstitution of the Trust dated 30.10.2012 as null and void and that, no right, title and interest over the Trust Property, could accrue on the basis of such Trust Deed. They also prayed for restraint by way of injunction against the Respondent from managing the immovable properties of the Trust from its income. That suit is still pending before the Learned Civil Judge, Junior Division-I, Jamshedpur. Petitioner is also aware of Title Suit No. 21/2015 filed by the Respondent No. 6 against the petitioner and another person seeking cancellation of Trust Deed No. IV 1114 dated 07.08.2013 as being illegal. 3-A. Consequential relief have also been prayed for in the said suit, which is enclosed as Annexure-12.;