ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner has sought review of the order dated 18.01.2013 passed in W.P.(C) No. 5869 of 2007, which reads as under:- “Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has sought quashing of the order dated 17th April 2007 (Annexure-14) passed by the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, by which the claim of the petitioner for declaration of Sardar Madho Singh Memorial Girls High School as minority institution, has been rejected. 3. The instant case has a chequered history. This appears to be the fourth round of litigation. From the facts which are not in dispute, it appears that initially, a primary school was established in the year 1931 which was recognized as Punjabi Primary School in 1936 and was upgraded to upper primary school in 1952. In 1957, school was upgraded to middle school as Sardar Madho Singh Memorial Girls Middle School which was finally granted permanent recognition with effect from 1st January 1960 and subsequently, the said middle school was declared as religious minority institution vide Memo No. 1857 dated 11th July 1980 issued by the Director, Primary School, Government of Bihar, Patna. In the meantime, Sardar Madho Singh Memorial Girls Middle School was accorded recognition with effect from 1st January 1964 by the Secondary Education Board, Bihar, Patna. The petitioner thereafter started making his claim for declaration of the Sardar Madho Singh Memorial Girls High school as a minority institution. When no action was taken on such request, the petitioner filed a writ application being CWJC No. 2201/1989 (R) in which the State Government was directed to dispose of the claim of the petitioner vide order dated 6th December 1989 (Annexure-9). The order passed by the Director, Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna was challenged in CWJC No. 1311/1990 (R) before the Patna High Court which held vide judgment dated 8th March 1994 that it was the State Government which was required to decide the claim of the petitioner in terms of the provisions of the Bihar Non-Government (Taking Over of Management and Control) Act, 1981 while the matter had been decided by the Director. Accordingly, by the said judgment dated 8th March 1994, the State Government was directed to decide the claim of the petitioner. Accordingly, by the said judgment dated 8th March 1994, the State Government was directed to decide the claim of the petitioner. Thereafter, by order dated 22nd December 1995, claim of the petitioner was rejected by the State Government, which was challenged in CWJC No. 1401/1996 (R). Once again, vide order dated 7th July 2003, this court remanded the matter to the concerned authority of the State of Jharkhand to reconsider the matter afresh within a stipulated period as the court found that the order had been passed without affording any opportunity to the petitioner (Annexure-13). The present impugned order dated 17th April 2007 has been passed consequent thereto. 4. Counsel for the petitioner has however assailed the impugned order on the ground that though, respondents have made out a case that the said school was taken over under the provisions of the Act of 1981, but the said process of taking over was not done in accordance with law in the sense that the assets of the said institution still lies with the petitioner society. However, it is not in dispute that the taking over the said Girls High School under the provisions of the Act of 1981 was never challenged by the petitioner till date. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the claim of the petitioner for seeking minority status has been refused primarily on the ground that the State Government under the provisions of section 3(1) of the Bihar Non-Government (Taking Over of Management and Control) Act, 1981, has taken over the said High School itself. Upon taking over of the said school, the school does not remain under the control and management of the petitioner. The respondent Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Jharkhand has recorded his finding on perusal of files and submissions of the parties that instances showing taking over of the school were also found to be established on facts, such as income from the tuition fees was deposited in the District Education Fund, salary of the teachers as well as non-teaching staff were paid out of the said fund. A new ad-hoc Managing Committee was constituted by the Government and the Block Development Officer was the Chairman of the said Managing Committee. Permanent Managing Committee was constituted in 1977 and the Managing Committee kept on managing and running the school till the school was nationalized. A new ad-hoc Managing Committee was constituted by the Government and the Block Development Officer was the Chairman of the said Managing Committee. Permanent Managing Committee was constituted in 1977 and the Managing Committee kept on managing and running the school till the school was nationalized. Number of appointments were also made between 1976 and 1980, but the petitioner Punjab Vidya Sabha never protested against these developments which would clearly establish that the control and the functioning of the Managing Committee and running of the school was in the hands of the respondent authorities. By the impugned order, therefore it has been held that the school having been taken over by the Government, it cannot be declared as a minority school. 6. Upon hearing the counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the relevant records, it is apparent that the High School in question was itself taken over under the provisions of Bihar Non Government (Taking Over of Management and Control) Act, 1981 and earlier under the preceding Ordinance from the period 1974 onwards and as a matter of fact, was under the management and control of the respondent authority of the State as well. Once the school having been taken over under the provisions of the said Act of 1981, obviously it can not have a valid claim to be declared as a minority institution which can only be made if the school / institution is run by a private society or management. 7. In these facts and circumstances and the reasons referred hereinabove, petitioner have failed to make out any case for interference in the impugned order. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.” 3. Writ petitioner being dissatisfied, approached the learned Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 54 of 2013, which was dismissed by order dated 20.04.2015 (Annexure-17). When the matter was taken to the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (CC) No. 20491 of 2015, the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 27.11.2015, which reads as under:- “Upon hearing the counsel the Court made the following ORDER Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the special leave petition and he says that he will file a review petition before the High Court. The special leave petition is dismissed as withdrawn”. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to ground no. The special leave petition is dismissed as withdrawn”. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to ground no. V in particular to submit that similarly situated schools, which were taken over under the Bihar Non Government (Taking Over of Management and Control) Act, 1981 have been granted the minority status. He also submits that peculiar situation has resulted since the school with the same name up to the middle level is a recognized minority school but the high school stood taken over by the State Government under the Act of 1981 without due application of mind to the relevant material facts and the report of the Deputy Director of Education, Bihar (Annexure-7), (this however does not bear any specific date). On being specifically confronted, learned counsel for the review petitioner fairly submits that this ground of parity based on the example of similar school was not taken before the Writ Court. However, the circumstances, if considered in totality, necessitate a fresh consideration to the case of the petitioner at the hands of the respondent authorities. As such, it would be in the interest of justice to review the order passed in W.P.(C) No. 5869 of 2007. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent State has objected to the prayer. He has referred to the findings contained in the impugned order dated 18.01.2013 as also upheld in L.P.A. He further points out that the High School was taken over in the year 1981 itself under the Act of 1981, which was not challenged by the Society, instead it pursued litigation instituted for declaration of minority status for the first time in 1989 in C.W.J.C No. 2201/1989 (R). The order impugned in the writ petition passed by the Department of Human Resources Development, Government of Jharkhand dated 17.04.2007, was duly scrutinized by the Writ Court. For the grounds and reasons recorded therein, this Court was of the conscious view that the same does not require any interference. The grounds now being raised are not available to the writ petitioner for seeking review of the order impugned. There is no error apparent on the face of the record either. 6. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties in the light the facts pleaded and the ground urged for seeking review. The ground taken in para V in particular was not taken up before the Writ Court when the case was decided. There is no error apparent on the face of the record either. 6. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties in the light the facts pleaded and the ground urged for seeking review. The ground taken in para V in particular was not taken up before the Writ Court when the case was decided. It therefore cannot be said that the order impugned suffers from error apparent on the face of the record in failing to notice such instance of similarly situated schools. On the other hand the Writ Court after giving due opportunity to the parties and on consideration of the material facts on record did not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order as the very taking over of the school in 1981 in the background facts and circumstances, was never made subject matter of challenge by the petitioner Society. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that no case of review is made out. Respondent State authorities may in their discretion consider the case of the petitioner on fresh grounds, if permissible in law, but no specific direction or order can be passed in the instant matter. 7. The review petition is dismissed accordingly.