Patna High Court - Orders
The Managing Committee Lal Bahadur ... vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 30 April, 2012
Author: Navin Sinha
Bench: Navin Sinha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6452 of 2012
======================================================
1. The Managing Committee Lal Bahadur Shastri Sanskrit High School
Babhangama, P.O.- Rajni Babhengama, P.S.- Behariganj, District-
Madhepura, Through Its Secretary Akhilesh Kumar, S/O Sri Dina Nath
Prabodh
2. Akhilesh Kumar S/O Sri Dina Nath Prabodh R/O Village- Babhangama,
P.O.- Rajni Babhangama, P.S.-Behariganj, District- Madhepura
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. The Principal Secretary Human Resources Developmnet Department,
Government Of Bihar, Patna
3. The Special Director (Sanskrit) Human Resources Developmnet
Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna
4. Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, East Boring Canal Road, Patna Through
Its Secretary
5. The Chairman, Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, East Boring Canal Road,
Patna
6. The Secretary, Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, East Boring Canal Road,
Patna
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shanti Pratap
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ravindra Kr Choubey Sc8
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA
ORAL ORDER
2 30-04-2012I.A. No. 3146 of 2012 has been filed today in the Registry challenging the order dated 22.7.2011 passed by the State Government rejecting the recommendation for recognition in favour of the petitioner institution. It is not on the record. The office shall place it on record. Copies have been served on the Counsel for the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') and the State. The Court therefore requested Counsel for the petitioners to make available an extra copy of the same for perusal. The copy placed before the Court be kept on the record.
Considering that the development has taken place during Patna High Court CWJC No.6452 of 2012 (2) dt.30-04-2012 2 pendency of the writ application and consequential to the original relief sought, having heard Counsel for the parties in order to bring finality to the litigation at this stage the Court considers it proper to allow the same.
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, State and for the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board.
It is submitted that the Board after inspection on 16.2.2010 by report dated 17.2.2010 recommended recognition opining that Lal Bahadur Shastri Sanskrit High School, Babhangama fulfilled the requirements of 1993 Regulations. The State by a cryptic order has rejected the recognition. Counsel for the State submits that the order adequately states that the number of rooms and furniture were short as also the books.
No useful purpose is going to be served by asking for a counter affidavit when the order of rejection purports to state reasons though not conclusively leaving an aspect of vagueness.
The inspection report states that there was one office room, two libraries, three laboratories and four class rooms. There were approximately 700 books in the Library. There were reasonable number of bench and desk, racks, table, chairs, steel Almirah etc for use of the students.
The issue for grant of recognition to a School for imparting education carries with it the responsibility to act reasonably and with application of mind. Even if the recommendation of the Board is not binding on the State Government, if the State Government, proposes to differ with it, it is required to pass a reasoned and speaking order disclosing full application of mind and complete reasons why it differs with the recommendation of the Board and how with reference to the statutory provisions, the recommendation of the Board itself does not meet the statutory requirements. The manner in which the respondents have Patna High Court CWJC No.6452 of 2012 (2) dt.30-04-2012 3 passed the order in a pre designed format indicating incomplete brief reasons, does not meet the requirements of natural justice by disclosing full application of mind by the state authorities before rejecting the recommendation. The petitioners have a right to know that if the Board was satisfied that the institution was meeting the requirements, on what grounds the State Government, was not satisfied. Apart from the issue of disclosure for application of mind in the impugned order it is difficult to understand how the State Government expects the petitioner to appreciate the nature of the deficiency, remove the same and seek fresh recognition unless it is first made aware of the same. The order is ex facie arbitrary.
The order dated 22.7.2011 in so far as the petitioners are concerned, is set aside with directions to take a fresh appropriate decision in accordance with law and the discussion contained in the present order preferably within a maximum period of four weeks from the date of receipt and/or presentation of a copy of this order.
The writ application is allowed.
(Navin Sinha, J) Snkumar/-