JUDGMENT : Ashutosh Kumar, J. 1. Heard Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Satyabir Bharti for the appellants and Mr. P.K. Shahi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Shama Sinha for the respondents. 2. All the appeals have been taken up together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. The facts of LPA No. 875 of 2019 (The Bihar School Examination Board vs. Rambalak Prasad Singh Dropadi Devi Madhyamik Uchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya) arising out of CWJC No. 379 of 2019 has been taken up for illustrative set of facts for deciding these appeals. 4. In all such cases, the Bihar School Examination Board (hereinafter called ‘the Board’) has taken the plea that the affiliation granted to these schools were bad in law since its inception as the affiliation had been granted only by the Chairman of the Board and not by the Board as constituted under the Bihar School Examination Board Act, 1952 (refer to Section 3/Chapter-2). Later, the Board had found that all these schools do not have sufficient infrastructure to qualify for being granted affiliation as provided under Regulation 3 of Bihar School Examination Board (Senior Secondary) Affiliation Regulation, 2011 (hereinafter called ‘2011 Regulation’) or for continuing their affiliation because a specially constituted team had found severe deficiencies in the infrastructure and the explanation offered by the schools pursuant to the show-cause notices issued to them, were also not satisfactory. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents/schools have inter alia contended that the order impugned in all such writ petitions giving rise to the appeals do not reflect any application of mind in as much as the orders are with respect to withdrawal of affiliation under Regulation 15 of the 2011 Regulation for the reason that in case it was found by the Board that those schools did not have sufficient infrastructure or were not fulfilling other conditions as enumerated in regulation 3 of 2011 Regulation, they ought to have had been provided with adequate time and opportunity, up to a maximum of one year, for adequate compliance/removal of defects and if those schools would have failed to upgrade themselves, then only the Board ought to have taken a decision to disaffiliate such institutions. 6. 6. That not having been done, the order suffers from the vice of non-observance of the provisions of the Regulation 15 which has been resorted to for disaffiliating/withdrawing the affiliation of such institutions. 7. It has also been contended by one of the learned Advocates in one such appeal that from the impugned order, it is not reflected that the opinion of the Inspecting team regarding deficiency in the infrastructure of the schools was routed through the Affiliation committee, which is a clear violation of the provisions contained in Section 10(C) of the Act of 1952 and regulation 14(5) of 2011 Regulation. 8. It has further been argued that it makes no difference that the Board in its counter affidavit before the writ court had stated that the report of the Inspecting team was placed before the Affiliation committee and only thereafter the Board had taken a decision. Assuming but not admitting this fact to be correct, non-reflection of the opinion of the affiliation committee in the decision of the Board to disaffiliate the schools only indicates that either there was no such opinion of the Affiliation committee or if there was any, the same was never adverted to. In both the cases, the order of the Board disaffiliating the institutions ought not to survive and be set aside. 9. Lastly, it has been argued that the learned single Judge while dealing with such an order was rightly of the view that once a decision was taken for withdrawing affiliation, it was to be presumed that affiliation had been granted, even though in an irregular manner, but if a decision was taken under the provisions of regulation 15, the procedure ingrained therein could not have been avoided by the Board for it to be sustained on judicial scrutiny. 10. Mr. Satyabir Bharti, learned counsel for the Board, however, has stated that the affiliation to all such institutions had not been granted by the Board but by the Chairman and therefore, it is no affiliation in the eyes of law. Even the learned single Judge who had decided the batch of writ petitions, (the lead case being CWJC No. 1366 of 2017 [Ucchatar Madhyamik School, (+2), Kabar vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. on 24.08.2017] was of the view that the Chairman is not the Board which alone has the powers to grant affiliation to such Secondary schools. 11. Mr. on 24.08.2017] was of the view that the Chairman is not the Board which alone has the powers to grant affiliation to such Secondary schools. 11. Mr. Bharti has further referred to the judgment of the Division Bench in LPA No. 1431 of 2017 and analogous appeals wherein the observation of the learned Single Judge referred to above with respect to the directions given in paragraph-55 of the judgment dated 24.08.2017 passed in CWJC No. 1366 of 2017 and analogous cases has been modified. 12. Paragraph-55 of the judgment dated 24.08.2017 in C.W.J.C. No. 1366 of 2017 is extracted herein below : In the present batch of cases, the affidavits have been filed on behalf of the petitioners giving an undertaking that they shall remove all the deficiencies and fulfill the conditions of affiliations within different periods of time mentioned therein. The Court expects the Board to consider individual cases of the schools and if it is found permissible, allow them time to remove such deficiencies in terms of proviso to sub-Regulation (4) of Regulation 3 of the Regulations. The Board, for the said purpose, will be required to undertake the exercise afresh to ascertain whether these schools fulfill conditions of affiliation or are in a position to overcome the deficiencies. A positive and constructive approach, if taken by the Board, may have good results in larger public interest. The Board, while taking any decision, must keep in mind whether Government schools and Government aided schools do have the infrastructure and teaching facilities to meet the standards of conditions for affiliation. 13. This observation was modified by the Division Bench in LPA No. 1431 of 2017 to the extent that deficiencies in the infrastructure and removal thereof would be dealt with by the Board or the competent authority as the case may be in terms of the Act and Regulation in accordance with law. So far as the other observations of the learned Single Judge was concerned, the Division Bench in the afore-noted analogous LPAs ratified the same. 14. Be that as it may, it is the contention of the Board that in the first instance, the affiliation was wrongly granted to these institutions. However, later, an inquiry was made by constituting an inquiry committee which was to address itself to 18 issues with respect to each of the schools in question and submit a report. 14. Be that as it may, it is the contention of the Board that in the first instance, the affiliation was wrongly granted to these institutions. However, later, an inquiry was made by constituting an inquiry committee which was to address itself to 18 issues with respect to each of the schools in question and submit a report. The report of the committee was relied upon. The Chairman approved the report of the Chief Vigilance Officer who had suggested for disaffiliation/withdrawal of affiliation of these schools. Such decision of the Chairman of the Board was challenged primarily on the ground of coram non judice; which objection was sustained as the decision in that regard was required to be taken by the Board and not by the Chairman of the Board. It was in this context that the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 1366 of 2017 was of the view that if any process was initiated for disaffiliation of these schools, it ought to have followed the procedure prescribed under the 2011 Regulation. 15. Pursuant to the aforesaid observations and directions of the learned Single Judge, which was in a large measure ratified by the Division Bench, a fresh exercise was made and a decision was taken by the Board to disaffiliate the institutions. 16. In order to appreciate the contention of the parties, it would be necessary for us to delineate in short the provisions contained in Section 10(b) and (c) of the Bihar School Examination Board Act, 1952. 17. Section 10(b) provides for constitution of a committee of affiliation for the purposes of granting and withdrawing affiliation of Secondary and Senior Secondary Schools established by Non-Governmental Organization. Such committee would comprise the Chairman of the Board and a person to be nominated by the Board. It would be relevant here in this context to refer to the constitution of the Affiliation Committee under the new Act viz. Bihar School Examination Board Act, 2019 which has been brought into existence on 30th of June, 2019. 18. Under the new Act, the Affiliation committee comprises (i) the Secretary of the Board; (ii) Director Secondary Education, Government of Bihar; (iii) Director, (Academics) of the Board and; (iv) Chief Vigilance Officer of the Board. 19. Bihar School Examination Board Act, 2019 which has been brought into existence on 30th of June, 2019. 18. Under the new Act, the Affiliation committee comprises (i) the Secretary of the Board; (ii) Director Secondary Education, Government of Bihar; (iii) Director, (Academics) of the Board and; (iv) Chief Vigilance Officer of the Board. 19. Under the old Act of 1952, which was in currency when the impugned orders were passed, the power to grant and withdraw affiliation lay with the Board only. Section 10(c) specifies that the Board shall take a decision with respect to grant or withdrawal of affiliation on the basis of the recommendation of the committee of Affiliation. 20. It may not be out of place here to this context to mention that in some of the cases which came for consideration before this Bench, the Board had taken the plea that in view of Section 10(c) of the Act, the opinion of the Affiliation committee may be taken into account but the Board is not bound to accept the opinion of the Affiliation committee. Such view of the Board was accepted by this Bench in other set of cases where despite the favourable opinion of the Affiliation committee to grant affiliation, no such affiliation had been granted. 21. This Court had taken the view that in the power to grant or withdraw affiliation, the power to withhold affiliation was inherent, which could not have been ignored. There is a reason for referring to the aforesaid argument which shall be dealt with in the later part of the judgment. 22. It would also be therefore relevant to notice that under the new Act of 2019, it has been specified in Section 20 that the recommendation of the committee of Affiliation shall be placed before the Board for final decision but such recommendation of the committee of affiliation shall not be binding on the Board and the Board shall have the power to constitute such other committees for determining the eligibility of the Secondary and Senior Secondary Schools seeking affiliation with the Board. 23. Two of the provisions of the Bihar School Examination Board, Senior Secondary (Affiliation Regulation, 2011) are also required to be noticed for the sake of completeness. 24. Regulation 3 falling in Chapter 2 prescribes the conditions for affiliation and lays down minimal essential conditions for any institution to apply to the Board for affiliation. 23. Two of the provisions of the Bihar School Examination Board, Senior Secondary (Affiliation Regulation, 2011) are also required to be noticed for the sake of completeness. 24. Regulation 3 falling in Chapter 2 prescribes the conditions for affiliation and lays down minimal essential conditions for any institution to apply to the Board for affiliation. These essential minimum conditions are primarily with respect to the infrastructure and total area/land belonging to the school. 25. Regulation 11 is in the nature of miscellaneous provisions, giving powers to the Board to get such schools inspected by an inspection committee deputed by the Board, the Education Department and the Health Department authorities for the needful and such schools would be under an obligation to open up for such inspection and provide information and returns called by the Board or the State Government within the prescribed time. 26. Chapter 3 of the Regulation of 2011 provides for the procedure for submission of applications for affiliation and follow up action. For any school to apply for affiliation with the Board, it should fulfill the essential requirements of affiliation as referred to in Regulation 3 of Chapter 2. 27. It has been made clear in the aforesaid Regulation that no application would be considered in case the essential requirements are not fulfilled by the school. 28. On such application, the Board would first examine the documents to satisfy itself that the conditions specified in Clause 3 of Chapter 2 is fulfilled and then would appoint an Inspection Committee to assess the suitability of the school for the affiliation with the Board for specific classes for which application is made. 29. The report of such committee is then required to be placed before the Affiliation committee for an appropriate decision. Whereafter, a decision is taken by the Board, either granting or not granting affiliation to such school. 30. It is, however, to be noted that Sub-clause 5 of Regulation 14 provides for a Committee of Affiliation to be constituted by the Board for the purposes of granting and withdrawing affiliation of Secondary and Senior Secondary Schools established by non-government organizations. The committee comprises the Chairman of the Board, the Secretary of the Board or his nominee and a person to be nominated by the Board. The committee comprises the Chairman of the Board, the Secretary of the Board or his nominee and a person to be nominated by the Board. This provision, therefore, specifies that whether a decision is taken by the Board to grant affiliation or to withhold affiliation or to withdraw the affiliation or disaffiliate the school, the opinion of the committee of Affiliation has to be taken. 31. There is a specific chapter devoted to withdrawal of affiliation of already affiliated schools (Chapter 4). 32. Regulation 15 of Chapter IV provides the power to the Board to withdraw the affiliation either of the school in its entirety or with respect to subjects taught in the school. But before taking that decision, a full length procedure has been prescribed under the aforesaid resolution which includes the conditions under which normally affiliation is to be withdrawn viz. if the management of the school does not observe financial regularities or engages itself in activities which are prejudicial to the interest of the State or provides a platform which encourages intolerence/disharmony amongst different sections of society or that the deficiencies so pointed out are not removed even after due notice. 33. If there is violation of the provisions of Sub-clause 3 of Chapter 2 which has been referred to above, viz. the conditions of affiliation, that also would constitute a specific ground for withdrawal of affiliation. 34. The Regulation further provides that adequate time and opportunity would be granted to the management of the school to upgrade itself within a maximum of one year for adequate compliance/removal of defects and on failure to do so, the Board may declare the institution disaffiliated and that decision shall be final and binding. 35. However, Clause 8 of Regulation 15 salvages such institutions which are disaffiliated on the ground of deficiency in infrastructure by providing them an opportunity of filing a fresh application for revival of affiliation within five years of such disaffiliation, after upgrading itself in all respects. In that case it has been made incumbent upon the Affiliation committee to consider the merits of such revival application, without charging any fresh fee for affiliation. 36. But, it has been categorically provided that repeated violation of by-laws will lead to permanent disaffiliation of the schools. 37. In that case it has been made incumbent upon the Affiliation committee to consider the merits of such revival application, without charging any fresh fee for affiliation. 36. But, it has been categorically provided that repeated violation of by-laws will lead to permanent disaffiliation of the schools. 37. Taking resort to the provisions of the Act and the Regulation referred to above, the Board had exercised its powers to withdraw the affiliation of the respondents/schools under Regulation 15 which was challenged before this Court vide batch of writ petitions, the lead case being CWJC No. 1366 of 2017 [Ucchatar Madhyamik School, (+2), Kabar vs. The State of Bihar and Ors.)] referred above. 38. Many issues were raised on behalf of the parties including preliminary objection of there being a provision of appeal before the State Government under Section 10(b) of the Act but the learned Single Judge, taking note of the fact that the decisions had been taken on the basis of inquiry report of a five member committee constituted by the Board by the Chairman of the Board only and not by the Board, set aside such orders of disaffiliation/withdrawal of affiliation. 39. The learned Single Judge positively held that the statutory powers of cancellation of affiliation could be exercised by the Board as constituted under Section 4A of the Act and that Chairman is only a part of the Board who could not have taken any individual decision in the matter. 40. On a reading of Section 10(b) and 10(c) of the Act as well as Regulations 14 and 15 of the 2011 Regulation, the Court was of the view that there was no ambiguity that in cases of grant of recognition or withdrawal of the same, the Board would be guided by the recommendation of the committee of affiliation. The argument raised on behalf of the Board that for withdrawal of recognition, there is no necessity of the opinion of the committee of Affiliation as there is no such corresponding provision under Regulation 15, was not accepted as the power of withdrawal of recognition under the parent Act has been provided under Section 10(c) which specifies that even with respect to withdrawal of affiliation/disaffiliation, the opinion of the Affiliation committee would be relied upon. 41. The argument of the Board that the provision contained in Regulation 14 (5) is superfluous, was discarded by the Bench. 42. 41. The argument of the Board that the provision contained in Regulation 14 (5) is superfluous, was discarded by the Bench. 42. It was thus held that such withdrawal of affiliation was bad in the eyes of law primarily on the ground that such decision was taken by the Chairman in his individual capacity and not by the Board. The Board was directed to give opportunity to the respondents/schools for upgrading itself and removing the deficiencies and a positive and constructive approach had to be taken by the Board while taking any fresh decision in the matter. 43. We however notice that though the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the decision regarding grant and withdrawal of affiliation is to be taken by the Board and not by the Chairman but had applied this ratio only in the context of the decision regarding withdrawal of the affiliation. Nothing has been said in the aforesaid judgment with respect to the flaw brought to the notice of the Court that even the grant of affiliation was only by the Chairman and not by the Board, making such order of affiliation in the first instance highly suspect in the eyes of law. 44. Going by the age old principle of what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, the judgment of the Single Judge ignores this aspect of the matter and directed that in case of withdrawal of recognition, the procedure prescribed under Regulation 15 be strictly followed. 45. We have also noticed that when such order was put to challenge by the Board, the Division Bench in LPA No. 1431 of 2017 (the lead case) and other analogous appeals found no justification to interfere with the learned Single Judge’s order especially in view of the fact that the matter was sent to the Board for taking a fresh decision with respect to withdrawal of affiliation. The Division Bench therefore held it prudent to leave it open to the Board to consider the matter afresh, after giving reasonable opportunity to the schools in question and considering their replies independently before taking any final decision in the matter. 46. The Division Bench therefore held it prudent to leave it open to the Board to consider the matter afresh, after giving reasonable opportunity to the schools in question and considering their replies independently before taking any final decision in the matter. 46. Only the observations of the learned Single Judge in paragraph 55 of the judgment, referred to above, was diluted to the extent that the Board was given the liberty not to treat such direction as any mandamus but take its own decision with respect to withdrawal of affiliation. 47. Two situations could be inferred from the aforesaid judgments of the learned Single Judge as well as of the Division Bench. If the entire gamut of reasoning given by the learned Single Judge that the Board does not only constitute the Chairman in his individual capacity is applied to the facts of this case, then if the decision of withdrawal in the first instance was bad then on that count, even the grant of affiliation cannot be said to be above board qua such requirement of the decision in that regard to be taken by the Board and not by any individual member of the Board. If that be so, then the Board was required to take a decision whether the affiliation itself is bad and in that case such decision could have been taken only under the provisions of Section 10(c) of the Act. Any action under the provision of 10 (c) of the Act would per force to be in terms of regulations 14 and 15 of the 2011 Regulation. 48. This being the fact scenario, to our mind, it was open for the Board to take that aspect in consideration also while taking a final decision with respect to withdrawal of affiliation. 49. However, it appears from the learned Single Judge’s order that it was not specifically referred to and the matter was relegated to the Board to take a specific decision with respect to withdrawal of affiliation, thereby pre-supposing that there was no flaw with respect to grant of affiliation in first instance. 50. 49. However, it appears from the learned Single Judge’s order that it was not specifically referred to and the matter was relegated to the Board to take a specific decision with respect to withdrawal of affiliation, thereby pre-supposing that there was no flaw with respect to grant of affiliation in first instance. 50. In the LPA judgment, only one observation of the learned Single Judge was modified which was only to the extent of an expectation of the Court (Single Judge) that the Board would follow the procedure under Regulation 15 which provides for giving ample time of one year for the institutions to upgrade itself in terms of infrastructure. 51. The dilution of the aforesaid observation of the learned Single Judge by the Division Bench, therefore, would by implication mean that such observations were not to be treated as binding and the Board ought to take a decision independently, including the factor that in the first instance, the affiliation suffered from the vice of coram non judice. 52. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions of the learned Single Judge as also of the Division Bench, the inspection committee’s report is stated to have been placed before the committee of Affiliation, which according to the Board held its deliberations on 25.09.2018. Thereafter, the Board, as urged on its behalf, took individual decisions with respect to the respondents/schools and found that they were deficient in infrastructure as also that they did not at all qualify in the first instance for making any application for affiliation. 53. Hence, all the respondents/schools were disaffiliated. 54. As noted above, Mr. Shashank Chandra, learned Advocate in one of the appeals, rightly pointed out that from the order passed by the Board in the second instance, there is no reflection of the fact that there was any opinion of the Committee of Affiliation over the issue. In the counter affidavit by the Board before the writ court, such deliberation was not brought on record. Assuming it to be correct information, the Board does not seem to have adverted to the aforesaid opinion and on that score itself, such order passed by the Board regarding disaffiliation of the respondents/schools cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, as it violates the specific provision contained under Section 10(c) of the Act of 1952 and the regulation 14(5) of the 2011 Regulation. 55. Mr. 55. Mr. Satyabir Bharti, learned counsel for the Board concedes that the order passed by the Board disaffiliating the institution is not happily worded and the main focus of the Board appears to be that the respective institutions do not qualify for being granted affiliation and on further inquiry by the inspecting team, they were found to be severely deficient in terms of infrastructure, land as well as the ownership of the land of the school in question. 56. The aforesaid explanation does not cover up the fallacy in the impugned order. 57. We have some reservation in accepting the proposition that the decision of the Board was routed through the committee of Affiliation. 58. However on a broader analysis of the facts which have been brought to our notice, we find that after the institutions were disaffiliated in the first round of exercise in that regard, the students enrolled with those schools were permitted to appear in the Board examination through other schools and thereafter the schools were not permitted to take further admission or continue with their classes. 59. This situation has remained practically the same for the last five years by now. 60. However the final order with respect to disaffiliation was taken in the year 2018. 61. We cannot shut our eyes to the fact that the institutions in question were not granted affiliation by the Board but by the Chairman only. This strikes at the route of the matter and no argument can justify grant of such affiliation. 62. We have thus no hesitation in holding that if, in the first instance, the affiliation was not granted properly, that would be a valid ground for taking a decision of disaffiliating such institutions or else the entire purpose and scheme of the Act and the provisions contained therein with regard to affiliation, withdrawal of affiliation/disaffiliation, would be rendered meaningless. 63. We find that this is an additional ground apart from the deficiency in infrastructure of such schools, which has rightly been taken into account by the Board while disaffiliating the institutions. 64. Thus, for the reasons aforestated, we are not inclined to interfere with the decision of the Board, disaffiliating the institutions and therefore, we are constrained to set aside the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in all these appeals. 65. 64. Thus, for the reasons aforestated, we are not inclined to interfere with the decision of the Board, disaffiliating the institutions and therefore, we are constrained to set aside the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in all these appeals. 65. However after having said that, we are of the view that if the impugned decision of the Board, disaffiliating the institutions was taken also on the ground of lack of infrastructure and the schools were not given time to upgrade, it would be in the interest and betterment of academics in the State of Bihar and for the benefit of larger good that the respondents/institutions be given the liberty to make a fresh application for revival of their affiliation/grant of fresh affiliation which is permitted under Clause 8 of Regulation 15 which shall be considered on its merits by the Affiliation committee. 66. For all practical purposes, any decision with respect to revival of the affiliation would include the conditions which are necessary for grant of affiliation in the first instance. 67. We, therefore, direct that the Board while taking a decision on such application so filed by the respective schools will not take the plea that frequent violation of the by-laws has led to any permanent disaffiliation of the schools. 68. Needless to state that the Board shall look into all aspects of the matter and shall take a decision for granting fresh affiliation or revival of the affiliation, if the institutions in question have the requisite standing in terms of infrastructure and other conditions specified in the Act and the Regulation for grant of such affiliation. 69. While taking any decision, the provisions contained in the Act and the Rules shall be strictly adhered to. 70. With the aforesaid directions/observations, all the appeals are disposed of.