Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. Mr. T. Singhdev submits, per contra, that the Union of India has waited for over almost a year for the comments to come from the State Government and that it has decided to proceed with the recommendations to close down the petitioner institution only when, despite repeated reminders, the State Government has failed to provide any comments. While Mr. T. Singhdev submits that the reasons for the State government's inaction in this regard cannot be presumed at this juncture, the Union Government and the DCI cannot be expected to await indefinitely for the State government to respond, especially where there are clear deficiencies in the petitioner institution.

20. As such, issue notice to show cause as to why rule nisi be not issued. Notice be additionally issued in CM APPL 16549/2024.

21. Notice is accepted on behalf of Respondents 1, 2 and 3 by Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, learned CGSC and on behalf of Respondent 4 by Mr. T. Singhdev.

22. Though there is no nominated counsel for the State of Bihar, it is informed that Mr. Manish Kumar is the nominated counsel for the State of Bihar in the Supreme Court.