Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1706 (PAT)

Swami Daya Nand Arya Prathmik v. State Of Bihar

2008-11-28

CHANDRAMAULI KR.PRASAD, RAVI RANJAN

body2008
JUDGEMENT CHANDRAMAULI KR.PRASAD and RAVI RANJAN JJ. 1. Writ petitioner-appellant, aggrieved by the order dated 22.4.1999 passed by a learned Single Judge in M.J.C. No. 18 of 1999 has preferred this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. 2. Short facts, giving rise to the present appeal, are that the writ petitioner filed C.W.J.C. No. 6120 of 1998 before this Court inter alia, raising a grievance that although the college in question had been inspected by the Committee constituted by the State Government and the Committee had submitted report but the State Government has not taken any decision so far as the recognition of the college is concerned. This Court, by order dated 2.9.1998 directed the State Government to take final decision within 12 weaks from the date of the said order. 3. Complaining non-compliance of the aforesaid order, the writ petitioner filed M.J.C. No. 18 of 1999. In the contempt application, it was brought to the notice of the Court that prayer of the petitioner for grant of recognition was rejected by order dated 22.4.1999. 4. This Court, by order dated 22.4.1999, remitted the matter back to the State Government for fresh decision on the issue of recognition of the petitioner college and while doing so, it was observed that in case of any defect or ambiguity in the report submitted by the Committee, the State Government may ask the District Collector to enquire and submit fresh report. 5. Mr. Rajendra Sharma, appearing on behalf of the appellant, submits that this Court, whiie disposing of the contempt application, ought not to have given liberty to the State Government to get the matter examined by the District Collector in case of defect or ambiguity in the report of the Committee. He submits that such a work ought to have been assigned to the educationist. 6. Standing Counsel No. XVI appears on behalf of the respondents. 7. We do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Sharma. Confronted with the situation that there may be defect or ambiguity in the report of the Committee, this Court, taking into account the plea of the State Government, gave liberty to the State Government to get the matter enquired by the District Collector and to submit fresh report. We are of the opinion that there is no error in the aforesaid direction made by this court. 8. We are of the opinion that there is no error in the aforesaid direction made by this court. 8. We do not find any merit in this appeal and it is dismissed accordingly.