IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.227 of 2009
THE SECRETARY,MAN.COMM.,TILKA .
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS .
-----------
3/ 23/06/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the State.
The petitioner who is the Secretary of the
Managing Committee, Tilka Manjhi Kanya Uchch
Vidyalaya, Bhagalpur, is aggrieved by the order dated
23.6.2008 passed by the Deputy Directory, Secondary
Education, declining grant of recognition on the ground
that the educational institution did not fulfil the
prescribed mandate with regard to land and building.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the school was inspected earlier on 10.9.1996 and
found to possess land and building fulfilling conditions
of recognition.
The respondents in the counter affidavit
contended that the District Education Officer was
requested on 22.6.2006 to send necessary report after
conducting spot inspection of the school. A report dated
31.1.2007 was received and was then considered on the
issue of recognition which has been rejected by the
order dated 28.12.2007.
2
This Court on 19.4.2011 required the
respondents to bring on record the inspection report
dated 31.1.2007.
Learned counsel for the State has produced a
Xerox copy of the report dated 31.12.2007. Correctly
speaking, it should have been placed on record by way
of an affidavit. The order produced is directed to be kept
on record. The inspection report states that the
institution had lands available. It also mentions with
regard to the availability of building at column-4. It is
therefore manifest that it is not a case where barren
lands were claimed to be a school. The authorities in
their inspection dated 31.1.2007 did find that the
institution was in possession of lands and
constructions stood thereupon details whereof are
mentioned in the inspection report. Contrary to the
same the impugned order is vague and hardly helpful in
adjudication. Little did the respondents realize that if
their order was subject to challenge by the aggrieved
before a competent forum, their order was required to
be reasoned and discussed. The requirement of the law
not complied was a necessity to be mentioned in the
impugned order in comparison to what was found on
the site during inspection to arrive at the conclusion
how and in what manner the requirements for
3
recognition were not fulfilled.
The order dated 23.6.2008 is set aside. An
inspection is already stated to have been held on
31.1.2007 and a report is available. All that is now
required is to pass a fresh, reasoned and speaking order
so that litigation is brought to an end and not
continued by the respondents by passing orders which
are inconclusive in nature and not specific. The Deputy
Director, Primary, Secondary and Adult Education shall
ensure that the authorities pass a reasoned and
speaking order on the issue of recognition within a
maximum period of two months from the date of
receipt/production of a copy of this order before him.
The application stands allowed, but only to
the extent indicated.
KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)