Judgment Chandramauli Kr.Prasad, J. 1. Lalit Narain Mithila University, being aggrieved by the direction of this Court dated 5-9-2001 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 5428 of 2001, whereby it had directed the appellants to hold all pending examinations of the students who had taken admission in the College concerned when the College had valid affiliation/recognition under the Statute and to publish their results, has preferred this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Court. 2. In view of the order which I propose to pass in this appeal, I deem it inexpedient to give in details the facts of the case. Suffice it to say that respondent No. 1, i.e. the Board of Directors of Sarjug Dental College and Hospital filed C. W. J.C. No. 6428 of 2001, inter alia, praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the appellants-University, and its officers to hold all examinations of the students of the petitioner-College and to publish results thereof. Its further prayer was to quash the notification of the appellant-University dated 3-5-2001 whereby it gave information to all concerned as well as the general public that proposal for granting provisional affiliation to Sarjug Dental College, Laheriasarai, Darbhanga, for five Sessions from 1988-89 to 1992-93, was never approved by the Government of Bihar. 3. It is relevant to here to State that the writ petitioner, i.e. respondent No. 1 herein, filed W.P. (Civil) 708 of 1994 before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, by order dated 4th September, 1995, allowed the writ petition with the following direction: In the light of the above facts and circumstances, there can hardly be any objection to the grant of affiliation to the petitioner-College. The L.N. Mithila University is accordingly directed to grant permanent affiliation to the petitioners college viz. Sarjug Dental College. Of course, it is always open to the University to inspect the College from time to time to ensure that the requisite standards and facilities are being maintained in the College. 4. The State of Bihar, thereafter, filed an application for review of the said order and by order dated 23-9-1996, the Supreme Court set aside the order under review and directed for posting of the writ petition for regular hearing. 4. The State of Bihar, thereafter, filed an application for review of the said order and by order dated 23-9-1996, the Supreme Court set aside the order under review and directed for posting of the writ petition for regular hearing. While doing so, the Supreme Court observed as followers: This review petition was filed by the State of Bihar against the order dated 4th September, 1995 whereunder we disposed of the Writ Petition. The very first paragraph of our order states: The State Government had granted permission for establishing this College on 7th June, 1988 subject to condition that the Government shall not bear any kind of financial burden nor shall it be given any financial aid. This was one of the factors which obviously induced us to pass the order, which we did. Now, the State of Bihar has brought to our notice that the permission granted on 7-6-88 was with drawn on 27-7-88 i.e. within less than two months. Mr. Ashok K. Srivastava, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1, contends that this order of withdrawal does not exist as a fact, thought at the same time, he admits that the High Court has referred to this order in its Judgment dismissing the writ petition filed by the Respondent-Institution. We are of the opinion that when the petitioner was aware that the said permission was withdrawn by proceedings dated 27th July, 1988, it was his duty to bring that fact to our notice. It was open to him to contend that the said withdrawal is illegal or has no effect in law but it was his duty to bring that fact to our notice. As a matter of fact, a copy of the said proceedings has been filled by the Respondent Institution itself in this Writ Petition. On this ground alone, we set aside the order under review and post the writ petition for regular hearing after four weeks. For a period of six weeks from to-day status quo as on today shall be maintained. 5. During the pendency of the writ petition before the Supreme Court, Respondent No. 1 herein, preferred writ petition, inter alia, asking, for the reliefs as indicated above. It is relevant here to State that the Supreme Court, while setting aside its order under review, had taken cognizance of the fact that the order of the State Government dated 7th of June. It is relevant here to State that the Supreme Court, while setting aside its order under review, had taken cognizance of the fact that the order of the State Government dated 7th of June. 1988 was subsequently withdrawn by order dated 27th July, 1988 and the said fact was not brought to its notice. 6. In my considered opinion, when the writ petition filed by Respondent No. 1 before the Supreme Court is pending, resort to jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for commanding the university and its officials to hold the examination and to quash the notification dated 3rd of May, 2001 whereby the State Government informed to all concerned as well as the general public that proposal of granting provisional affiliation of the College was refused, was absolutely misconceived. In my opinion, in view of the pendency of the writ petition before the Supreme Court, the proceedings brought by Respondent No. 1, was absolutely misconceived and the writ petition was not fit to be entertained. On this ground alone, the order passed by the learned Single Judge, cannot be allowed to stand. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order dated 5-9-2001 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 6428 of 2001 is set aside.