Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1730 (PAT)

Sadhanashram Seva Samsad v. State Of Bihar

2010-08-02

NAVIN SINHA

body2010
JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State as also for respondent No. 7 who has appeared suo motu. 2. The petitioner is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act under laws at Kolkata. It runs educational institutions one of which is known as Ram Mohan Roy Seminary situated at Khajanchi Road, Patna. It is a religious minority school. An earlier litigation between the institution and its officials came to be adjudicated by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 361/04 preferred by respondent No. 7. In L.P.A. No. 1135/04 arising from the same this Court, in so far as the authorities in the State of Bihar are concerned, noticed as follows: "In the meantime, other controversies arose that has resulted into an order passed by the Director, Secondary Education Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna, contained in Annexure-14 to the writ application and the consequential order passed by District Education Officer, Patna removing the Principal and some of the office bearers contained in Annexure-15 to the writ application." 3. The Court then concluded as follows: "In our view, the City Civil Court, Kolkatta is the competent body to take decision in the matter." 4. It appears that in an ongoing suit at Kolkata certain interim orders were passed which came to be assailed by the aggrieved before the Kolkata High Court. In light of the same the order dated 10.7.2009 by the Director (Secondary Education), Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar at Patna has been passed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to persuade this Court on the merits of the order impugned to interfere with the same. 6. Learned counsel for the State of Bihar and respondent No. 7 opposed the maintainability of the application in view of the Division Bench order in L.P.A. No. 1135 of 2004 that this Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue. 7. In view of the order of the Division Bench holding that it is the Kolkata Courts alone which have jurisdiction in the matter, this Court finds it difficult to entertain the present writ application. The impugned order dated 18.7.2009 is based on certain orders stated to have been passed by the Kolkata Civil Court and the Kolkata High Court. 7. In view of the order of the Division Bench holding that it is the Kolkata Courts alone which have jurisdiction in the matter, this Court finds it difficult to entertain the present writ application. The impugned order dated 18.7.2009 is based on certain orders stated to have been passed by the Kolkata Civil Court and the Kolkata High Court. Any interpretation by this Court of any orders of the, courts at Kolkata runs the risk of an observation or possible conclusion running counter to what the courts at Kolkata had directed or intended. When the forum at Kolkata is available to the petitioner and its registered office is also situated at Kolkata, no inconvenience can be stated to be caused to the petitioner if in accordance with the Division Bench order it is directed to move the Kolkata Court. It may only be noticed that the petitioner has never raised any objection to the order of the Division Bench holding that it is the Kolkata Courts alone which have jurisdiction in the matter. 8. In so far as the State of Bihar is concerned, noticing their stand as aforesaid, this Court only observes that being the State it shall not approbate or reprobate at Kolkata. 9. In view of the nature of the order passed this Court has not considered it necessary to hear any of the interveners who may avail their remedies before the competent court at Kolkata. 10. The writ application stands disposed on grounds of lack of jurisdiction.