JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder the order dated 20.05.2019 as contained in memo no.JAC/1466/18-1815/19 passed by Secretary, Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi by which the permission for establishment of the school has been cancelled with immediate effect with the further direction to the petitioner school not to take admission of the students for the next academic session and if any admission would be taken the same would be responsibility and accountability of the petitioner school and in that situation the Council will not be responsible. 2. It is the case of the petitioner as per the pleading made in the writ petition that petitioner school has been established in the name of Dangwar High School, Palamu sometime in the year 1989 and after getting establishment/approval of the Government, is smoothly functioning and imparting education to the students. The school has also been granted approval after verification of the relevant documents but all of a sudden a notice dated 29.04.2019 has been served to the petitioner as contained under Annexure-6 asking the petitioner to show his cause as to why for the alleged irregularity as has been pointed out in the report submitted by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Palamau, the permission to run the school be not cancelled. The reply to that effect has been sought within a period of one week from the date of show cause notice dated 29.04.2019. The order has been passed on 20.05.2019 cancelling the permission granted to run the school with immediate effect as would appear from Annexure-7 annexed to the writ petition, on the basis of the fact that whatever irregularity has been pointed out in the enquiry report submitted by the Regional Deputy Director, Palamu that has been established and further for the reason that no reply to the show cause has been submitted by the petitioner. 3. Mr. Ashok Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order is improper and illegal since the same has been passed without considering the reply to show cause which has been submitted but the authority in haste has passed the order, holding in the order impugned that no such reply has been furnished by the petitioner. Mr. Ashok Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order is improper and illegal since the same has been passed without considering the reply to show cause which has been submitted but the authority in haste has passed the order, holding in the order impugned that no such reply has been furnished by the petitioner. In support of his argument he has submitted that the show cause dated 29.04.2019 has been served upon the petitioner only on 10.05.2019 and within a period of one week from the date of its receipt the reply to show cause has been filed as would appear from Annexure-6/A denying the entire allegation of commission of irregularity and as such it is incorrect to say that no reply to show cause has been furnished. He further submits that the students who have already admitted before passing the order dated 20.05.2019 are in apprehension of disturbances of academic career since in the garb of the order they would be denied to appear in the admission or registration. 4. Mr. Anil Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the Jharkhand Academic Council assisted by Ms. Richa Sanchita and Mr. Radha Krishna Gupta has submitted that it is incorrect to say as has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the reply to show cause has been submitted as because the day when the reply to the show cause has been reached to office of the academic council, the decision had already been taken on 20.05.2019. It has further been submitted that the show cause was issued on 29.04.2019 through speed post which was received on 02.05.2019 and as such it was incumbent upon the petitioner to furnish reply to the said show cause within a period of one week from the date of receipt of show cause but he has not chosen to file within time and the date when the reply has been received by the office, the impugned order had already been passed and as such there is no question of consideration of reply. He further submits denying the apprehension of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no reason of any apprehension of disturbances of the academic session of the students who have already taken admission prior to the impugned order dated 20.05.2019, however, he submits that as has been reflected in the impugned order if the students have taken admission on or after 20.05.2019 for that Council would not be responsible and they cannot be accommodated. 5. This Court after having heard learned counsel for the parties and after appreciating their rival submissions, has found the fact which is not dispute that a show cause notice was issued on 29.04.2019 by the Secretary, Jharkhand Academic Council basing upon the irregularity in an enquiry conducted and submitted by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Palamau asking to furnish his reply within a period of one week from the date of show cause of the said letter, as reflects from Annexure-6 the date of receiving of notice is 10.05.2019. Mr. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued vehemently that the date of receipt of notice since is 10.05.2019 and as such within a period of one week from the date of its receipt, the reply to the show cause has been filed as would appear from Annexure-6/A which is dated 15.05.2019 and as such according to him the reply to the show cause has already been furnished and as such the same ought to have been taken into consideration. 6. This Court after hearing the learned counsel for he petitioner has passed an order on 06.11.2019 directing learned counsel appearing for the respondent-JAC to place the original dispatch register and in pursuant thereto the original dispatch register has been placed. This Court after going through the original dispatch register, has found that the show cause dated 29.04.2019 has been issued for service through speed post dispatched on 02.05.2019. The said register does not reflect about the receipt of acknowledgement. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the show cause notice has not personally been served upon the petitioner rather it has been served through speed post, however the date of acknowledgement receipt has been given by the petitioner as on 10.05.2019. The reply to the show cause has been filed on 15.05.2019 as would appear from Annexure-6/A that the receipt has been shown as on 21.05.2019. The reply to the show cause has been filed on 15.05.2019 as would appear from Annexure-6/A that the receipt has been shown as on 21.05.2019. The decision has been taken on 20.05.2019 in absence of the show cause holding the petitioner to be involved in commission of irregularity and therefore, the final decision has been taken by cancelling the permission to run the school with immediate effect. The argument has been advanced on behalf of the parties about the date of service of show cause and the submission of reply to the show cause. 7. This Court is of the view that instead of going into the aforesaid controversy, it would be appropriate to remit the matter before the Secretary, Jharkhand Academic Council to consider the case afresh in the light of the reply submitted by the petitioner which has been received on 21.05.2019 as would appear from Annexure-6/A by taking decision in this regard within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order, the copy of the order shall be presented by the petitioner within a period of one week from the date of receipt of copy of the order. As has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent-JAC that the admission which has been taken on or before 20.05.2019 their career since is not in stake, therefore, no direction is being passed in this regard. In view thereof, the writ petition stands disposed of.