Judgment S. B. Sinha, J. 1. In this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ of or in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to issue a notification for taking over the Management and Control of Ragho Saryug ucchavidyalaya, Dhurgaon Madanpur, in terms of sub-section (3) of Sections of the Bihar Non-Government Secondary Sehool (Taking over of Management and Control) Act, 1981 hereinafter called and referred to as the said Act 2. According to the petitioners the aforementioned School was established on 2-10-1980. 3. The petitioner No.2 was alleged to be the Head Master of the said school and petitioner No.1 is alleged to be the Secretary of the Managing committee of the said School. 4. After coming into force of the aforementioned Act allegedly the managing Committee applied for taking over of the said school. In this connection a writ petition was also filed being C. W. J. C. No.1725 of 1985. In the said writ petition the State filed a counter affidavit wherein it was asserted as follows: - "that after receipt of the report of the Controller the file of petitioners school was placed before the Director, Secondary Education on 2-11-1983 but by that time an order was received from the Government that no school would be taken over by the Government. In financial year 1983-84. However, explaining all these things, the file was again placed before the Government to take over the School. The government of Bihar in Education Department was pleased to pass order to obtain the concurrence of the Finance Departmeat before taking over the institution. Accordingly, the file was sent to the finance Department and the Finance Department refused and ordered in the light of the Government decision contained in Memo no.4739, dated 11-5-1983 and directed to submit the same in the next financial year. The file was returned from the Financial department and now after decision on contained in Annexure 8 to the writ petition the matter is still under consideration of the government. As soon as the policy will be decided by the Government, the petitioners case will be considered. " 5. According to the petitioners in view of the said assertions made in the counter-affidavit the said writ petition was permitted to be withdrawn by this court by an order dated 7-1-1986. The said order has been quoted in paragraph 18 of the writ petition. " 5. According to the petitioners in view of the said assertions made in the counter-affidavit the said writ petition was permitted to be withdrawn by this court by an order dated 7-1-1986. The said order has been quoted in paragraph 18 of the writ petition. 6. The petitioners have asserted that thereafter various other schools have been taken over by the Government but so far as the said school is concerned, no notification has been issued in terms of the said Act. 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioners have drawn my attention to the fact that in a similar writ petition, by an order dated 22-12-1987 a special board was direcred to be constituted by this Court and one months time was granted to issue necessary notification by an order dated 22-12-1987. According to the petitioners an application for modification of the said order, dated 22-12-1987 was filed by the State but said application was rejected. 8. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, therefore, submitted that it was incumbent upon the authorities of the State of Bihar to consider the case of the petitioners school for its being taken over in terms of the provisions of the said Act in its proper perspective and issue an appropriate notification for taking over of the said school in terms of the provisions thereof. 9. Section 3 of the said Act reads as follows : - 10. It is not in dispute that the school in question could be taken over only in terms of sub-section (3) of Sec.3 of the aforementioned Act. 11. From a perusal of the aforementioned provision it would appear that no person has a legal right to obtain a writ of mandamus from this Court directing the State of Bihar to issue a notification in terms of the provisions contained in sub-section (3) of Sec.3 of the aforementioned Act. 12. In this case a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. Paragraphs 5 and 6 of toe counter-affidavit reads follows : - "5. That it is submitted that proceeding to the provisious of the Bihar non-Government Secondary Schools (Taking over of Management and Control) (Amendment) Ordinance, 1985 as made in Sec.3 (3) (1) Kha, the State Government has decided to taken over the management and Control of some of the proposed schools which were established before 11-8-1980. That it is submitted that proceeding to the provisious of the Bihar non-Government Secondary Schools (Taking over of Management and Control) (Amendment) Ordinance, 1985 as made in Sec.3 (3) (1) Kha, the State Government has decided to taken over the management and Control of some of the proposed schools which were established before 11-8-1980. These schools were to be taken over the Government during the Financial year 1988-89, 6. That it is further submitted that about 355 proposed High Schools are to be considered as they were etablished before 11-8-1980. The criteria for selecting such proposed High Schools during the financial year 1988-89 for the purpose, of their take over is still under consideration of the State Government, and as such without the decision of the State Government in this regard, the Directorate of secondary Education is unable to accord recognisation to any such schools. The petitioners institution are away these schools which are to be considered for its take over. " 13. There cannot, therefore, be any doubt whatsover Sec.3 of subsection (3) of the said Act is merely an enabling provision. It is only for the state to consider all aspects of the matter so that the question as to whether the school should be taken over or not may finally be decided by it. This Court, however, cannot issue any writ of mandamus in this regard as the petitioners have no legal right whatsoever in terms of Sec.3 (3) of the said Act. 14. However, as mentioned hereinbefore, according to the petitioners the school in question fulfils all the criteria as laid down in the said Act for its being taken over. 15. Taking into consideration all aspects of the matter, I am of the view that it is just and expedient that the respondents should in view of their assertions in the counter-affidavit take into consideration the feasbility of the schools being taken over. 16. It is also expected that the athorities concerned would arrive at an appropriate decision in this, regard in accordance with law at an early date and preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 17. With the aforementioned observations and directions this writ petition is disposed of but without any order as to costs. Petition disposed of accordingly.