JUDGMENT Hon’ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi, J.—This intra Court appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 12.11.2014, passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 60810 of 2005, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition as being misconceived. We have heard Shri Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and have gone through the relevant records. 2. Briefly stated the background facts are that the applications for grant of recognition of four institutions were rejected by respondent No. 3 Additional Secretary Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad vide order dated 27.7.2002 on the ground that those Colleges had played a fraud by presenting a forged Government Order for grant of recognition. The S.P. Balika Inter College Begum Bazar Bamrauli, District Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘College’) was one of those institutions, of which the appellant is Manager. The aforesaid order of Additional Secretary Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, rejecting the claim of appellant’s institution for further recognition, was challenged by means of another Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 48945 of 2003, in which this Court vide order dated 1.3.2005, while quashing the order dated 27.7.2002 directed the Additional Secretary Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad to hold an inquiry and pass fresh orders after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 3. In compliance of aforesaid order, the Additional Secretary Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad directed the petitioner to furnish his explanation fixing 6.5.2005 for hearing. The appellant appeared before the Additional Secretary Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad (respondent No. 3) on 6.5.2005 and submitted his written explanation. 4. After consideration of the claim of the appellant and his written submissions, filed by him, it was found that the College was granted recognition for Art subject in 2001 and for grant of fresh recognition in other subjects, at least two years’ examination results ought to have been shown by the institution to the authorities. However, instead of showing the examination results an application under Section 9(iv) of Intermediate Education Act, 1921 was moved by the College before the State Government invoking its jurisdiction for granting of recognition. It is alleged that the permission was received by an order dated 30.6.2001. However, instead of showing the examination results an application under Section 9(iv) of Intermediate Education Act, 1921 was moved by the College before the State Government invoking its jurisdiction for granting of recognition. It is alleged that the permission was received by an order dated 30.6.2001. The said order of State Government was communicated to the Office of Intermediate Education Board through a private person on 6.11.2001, therefore, a doubt was raised as to why the State Government had passed the order and had sent the same through a private person. A query was made from the State Government and the State Government vide its letter dated 14.1.2002 intimated that no such order has been passed by it. 5. The appellant claimed that he had never moved any application for grant of recognition from the State Government under Section 9(iv), instead, he had moved an application under Section 7(a) for recognizing a new subject, however, the authorities, disbelieving his statement, held that since the College has forged a Government Order, of which it is the sole beneficiary, the College is responsible for committing a fraud and denial by the College that it had not moved any such application was merely to cover up its guilt. It was also decided by the authorities that instead of launching criminal proceedings against the appellant it would be suffice to black list the institution indulging in such corrupt practices. Accordingly, the College was declined the recognition vide order dated 31.5.2005. 6. The aforesaid order dated 31.5.2005 was challenged in Writ Petition No. 60810 of 2005, which was decided by learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 12.11.2014 whereby dismissing the writ petition. Aggrieved by the dismissal of his writ petition, petitioner has filed this special appeal challenging the validity and correctness of the dismissal order. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that while passing the order dated 31.5.2005, learned Single Judge has relied on the story that appellant’s College had forged the Government Order dated 6.11.2001 without considering that the appellant had specifically submitted his stand that he had never submitted any application under Section 9(iv) of the Intermediate Act to the State Government nor he had any knowledge about the alleged forged Government Order dated 6.11.2001. The respondent No. 3 i.e. Additional Secretary Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad, without making any inquiry and on the basis of assumption and presumption, wrongly held that the appellant was the only person to be benefited by the alleged forged Government Order dated 6.11.2001, ignoring that there were four colleges in all which were being blacklisted. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has next contended that no opportunity of hearing was given to him before passing the order dated 31.5.2005 by the concerned authorities. The respondents, without conducting any inquiry and without complying the mandate issued by this Court vide judgment dated 1.3.2005 in Writ Petition No. 48945 of 2003, by which a clear direction was issued to the respondent No. 3 to pass a fresh order after holding inquiry and after giving opportunity of hearing to the appellant, has passed the impugned order, which cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside by this appellate Court. 9. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that there is no illegality in the order of learned Single Judge. The order dated 31.5.2005, impugned in the writ petition, shows that some institutions including the appellant’s institution were black listed due to their indulgence in corrupt practices and were declined further recognition. The appellant being the beneficiary was found responsible for committing fraud by means of presenting a forged Government Order delivered through a private person. A query was made regarding the genuineness of aforesaid Government Order from the State Government and the State Government vide its letter dated 14.1.2002 intimated that no such order has been passed by it. 10. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that apparently it was a case of fraud and the appellant, merely to cover up his guilt, has stated that he had not moved any such application before the Government. In fact, no such application was required before fabricating a forged Government Order so it does not make any difference whether he had moved any application or not. 11. The relevant part of the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge is quoted below : “I have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and have pursued the orders and the affidavits filed in the writ petition. 11. The relevant part of the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge is quoted below : “I have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and have pursued the orders and the affidavits filed in the writ petition. In my view apparently the grant of recognition is provided under Section 7(a) of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921, which recognition was granted for Arts in the said institution in 2001. It is not disputed that grant of fresh recognition can be made only after two examinations are held and results are shown to the authorities of the board with regard to the earlier recognition granted. The recognition in Art was granted in 2001 for examination of 2003, therefore, for grant of further recognition in other subjects would not have been possible before 2005. It appears that in order to circumvent such a procedure, the dubious method was adopted by the institution to by pass the Board by presenting before it a forged order of the State Government alleged to have been obtained under Section 9 (iv) of the Act of 1921. But eyebrows were raised when such an order was delivered to the board through a private individual. The authorities of the board then made an inquiry from the State Government to verify and the Government declined existence of, or passing such an order. The only and the only beneficiary of this crafty method can be no other but the institution alone. Therefore, the presumption drawn by the authorities cannot be said to be without any basis or reason. Under these circumstances, I see no error in the order for interference. So far as the claim of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is concerned that no such application was moved by him and no opportunity was given is a disputed question of fact, which can only be decided after leading of evidence for which the writ Court is not the appropriate forum. The petitioner, if so, desires can always invoke the jurisdiction of Civil Court for settlement of its right. I am not inclined to interfere in this order. The writ petition is misconceived and it is accordingly, dismissed.” 12. Learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any illegality in the aforesaid order. The petitioner, if so, desires can always invoke the jurisdiction of Civil Court for settlement of its right. I am not inclined to interfere in this order. The writ petition is misconceived and it is accordingly, dismissed.” 12. Learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any illegality in the aforesaid order. Whether any fraud was committed or not by the appellant is a matter which requires proof and evidence and for which the writ Court is not a proper forum hence learned Single Judge has rightly directed the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of Civil Court. 13. So far as the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was not given opportunity of hearing is concerned, it appears baseless in view of the fact that in the order dated 31.5.2005, it is clearly mentioned that the appellant was directed by order dated 25.4.2005 to furnish his explanation and 6.5.2005 was fixed for hearing him. On 6.5.2005, the appellant appeared before the authority concerned and submitted his written explanation. The authority concerned/Additional Secretary Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad after hearing him and after considering his written submission, passed the order dated 31.5.2005. Learned Single Judge did not find any illegality in the order dated 31.5.2005 requiring any interference by him and for the same reasons, we also do not find any reason to interfere in the order of learned Single Judge. The special appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. ——————