'Bar On Further Appeal Can't Be Ignored': Patna HC Rejects LPA Against Appellate Court's Order Under Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act
Dismissing a letters patent appeal filed against an appellate court's order under the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act pertaining to removal of the manager of a temple's deity and its property, the Patna High Court said that when the act itself creates a bar on filing further appeal then the same cannot be "ignored" and must be strictly enforced. The court said this after noting that...
Dismissing a letters patent appeal filed against an appellate court's order under the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act pertaining to removal of the manager of a temple's deity and its property, the Patna High Court said that when the act itself creates a bar on filing further appeal then the same cannot be "ignored" and must be strictly enforced.
The court said this after noting that Section 55(2) of the Act creates a bar on filing any further appeal against an order passed under Section 55 (1). For context, Section 55 (1) states that unless otherwise provided in the Act, an appeal shall lie to the High Court against every order passed by the District Judge under this Act. Section 55(2) thereafter states that "no appeal shall lie from any order passed in appeal under this Section.”
A Division Bench of Justice P. B. Bajanthri and Justice Alok Kumar Sinha in its order stated, “When the statute itself creates a bar in filing further appeal then the same cannot be ignored or given a go-by. The statutory provision creating the said bar has to be strictly followed and adhered to. The impugned order under challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal is an order passed by the Learned Single Judge in exercise of Appellate Jurisdiction conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 55 of 'the Religious Trusts Act' and since Sub-section (2) of Section 55 of the said Act creates a bar to filing any further appeal against the said order passed under Sub-section (1) of Section 55, the present Letters Patent Appeal has to be held as not maintainable in law. The learned Counsel for the appellant has failed to produce any decision/ Judgment which overcomes this statutory bar and as such the present Appeal has to be dismissed as not maintainable.”
The court was hearing a Letters Patent Appeal arising from a Miscellaneous Appeal whereby the appellant, Vijay Kumar Singh, had been removed from his position as Sevait of the Ram Laxman Janki Mandir at Devgana Garbhara, Muzaffarpur, through a notification dated January 9, 2008 issued by the Administrator of the Bihar State Religious Trust Board.
Challenging his removal, Singh initially approached the High Court through a civil writ in 2008 which was disposed in 2012 with liberty to file an application before the District Judge under Section 32(3) of the Act. The High Court had clarified that if such an application was filed within four weeks, the delay would be condoned. Thereafter, Singh filed the application on June 14, 2012, after the expiry of the court-granted period, and later sought condonation of delay through a separate petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in 2014. The District Judge, Muzaffarpur, did not condone the delay and instead directed the petitioner to obtain further clarification from the High Court.
Subsequently, Singh filed a plea in 2014 seeking extension of time, which was disposed of by the High Court on 15 October 2014. The court directed that if the petitioner could show sufficient reason, the District Judge may condone the delay. Eventually, the District Judge refused to condone the delay. Singh challenged this order before a Single Judge of the High Court by way of Miscellaneous Appeal which was also dismissed. Against this he moved a letters patent appeal before the division bench.
Finding the LPA to be non-maintainable by the bench held, “in view of the bar contained in Sub-section (2) of Section 55 of 'the Religious Trusts Act', the present Intra-Court Appeal filed by the appellant under Clause 10 of the Letter Patent of Patna High Court Rules is not maintainable in law and thus fit to be dismissed.”
After giving due consideration to Clause 10 of the Letter Patent of Patna High Court Rules and the judgments relied upon by the appellant, the Court further held, “the present Intra-Court Appeal is not maintainable in law in view of the bar created by Sub-section (2) of Section 55 of 'the Religious Trusts Act'.”
The Court also noticed that the Counsel for the appellant by relying on the Judgments that he referred to was all the time interpreting those Judgments and trying to logically infer from them that since the present Intra-Court Appeal was not against a Judgment passed in exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a Decree or Order, therefore, by that inference the present Appeal would be maintainable under Clause 10 of the Letter Patent of Patna High Court Rules.
“This approach on part of the appellant was/is faulty for the reason that a decision is an authority for what it decides and not for what could be logically inferred from the conclusion,” the Court stated.
“When the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant was confronted with the statutory provision contained in Subsection (2) of Section 55 of 'the Religious Trusts Act' which creates a bar to filing further appeal as against the order passed by the High Court in Appellate Jurisdiction under Sub-section (1) of Section 55 of the said Act, the learned Counsel could not come up with any satisfactory answer or judgment to overcome the said bar,” the Court added.
Therefore, while observing that the counsel for the appellant failed to produce any decision/ Judgment which overcame the statutory bar, the Court dismissed the appeal.
Case Title: Vijay Kumar Singh vs State of Bihar and Ors
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 44