Posted On by &filed under High Court, Patna High Court - Orders.


Patna High Court – Orders
Bihar Arajkiya Prathmik … vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 14 July, 2011
                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                   Letters Patent Appeal No.987 of 2011
                                                    In
                              Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4203 of 2007
                 ======================================================
                 Bihar Arajkiya Prathmik Shikkshak Sanghrash Samiti through its Secretary
                 Ram Sewak Mahto son of late Ram Lakhan Mahto, resident of East
                 Bariyarpur, P.O. Tara Bariyarpur, P.S. Khodawantpur, Dist. Begusarai, at
                 present residing at Purani post Office Lane, Punaichak, Patna.
                                                                        .... ....   Appellant/s
                                                     Versus
                 1. The State Of Bihar
                 2. The Commissioner cum Secretary, Human Resources Development
                    Department, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariate, Patna.
                 3. The Director Primary Education Human Resources Development
                    Department, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariate, Patna.
                 4. The Deputy Director Primary Education, Human Resources
                    Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariate, Patna.
                 5. The Chairman Secretary Common School System Commission 37,
                    B.C.I.D.C. Colony Rameshwar Dayal Patha Opp. A.N.College, Patna-
                    13.
                                                        .... .... Respondent/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Appellant/s     :       Mr. Nagendra Kumar Singh
                 For the Respondent/s        :   Mr. Gautam Bose , AAG 8 with Mr. Sanat
                                                 Kumar Mishra, A.C. to AAG 8.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                            and
                            HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA
                 ORAL ORDER

(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

3 14-07-2011 This Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent arises

from the common judgment and order dated 21st June 2011 passed
Patna High Court LPA No.987 of 2011 (3) dt.14-07-2011

2

by the learned single Judge in so far as the above C.W.J.C. No.

4203 of 2007 is dismissed.

The appellant- writ petitioner is Bihar Arajkiya Prathmik

Shikkshak Sangharsh Samiti. The said Samiti filed the above writ

petition for a direction to the State Government to take over

management and control of 390 Primary Schools mentioned in

Annexure-5 to the writ petition.

The State Government had as early as in the year 1993 in its

cabinet decision, decided not to take over the management and

control of the said 390 schools. A petition in the said subject

matter being C.W.J.C. No. 11774 of 2004 was not entertained by

this Court. Instead the petitioner was given liberty to represent its

case before the concerned authority.

The learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition.

The learned single Judge has made note of the cabinet decision

dated 23rd August 1993 and the Government Notification dated

23rd August 1993 not to take over the control and management of

the said 390 schools. The said decision was also notified under

Notification dated 23rd August 1993. The learned single Judge was

of the opinion that the High Court in exercise of power of judicial

review under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot issue writ of

mandamus against the State Government to take over the
Patna High Court LPA No.987 of 2011 (3) dt.14-07-2011

3

management and control of recognized, non-government schools.

Therefore, the present appeal.

We agree with the learned single Judge. Besides, we have

our own doubt whether the appellant had locus standi to file the

writ petition in the present nature. It has not come on record that

the appellant has legal existence. Nor do we know whether its

Secretary Ram Sewak Mahto had been authorized to file a petition

in the present nature. In absence of relevant averments made in the

writ petition, such a petition in a representative capacity could not

have been entertained.

For the aforesaid reason, the appeal is dismissed in limine.

(R.M. Doshit, CJ)

Basudeo Tiwary/- (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

66 queries in 0.108 seconds.