{"id":206877,"date":"2011-04-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-04-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/faiyaz-ahmad-vs-state-of-bihar-amp-ors-on-13-april-2011"},"modified":"2016-04-02T04:13:22","modified_gmt":"2016-04-01T22:43:22","slug":"faiyaz-ahmad-vs-state-of-bihar-amp-ors-on-13-april-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/faiyaz-ahmad-vs-state-of-bihar-amp-ors-on-13-april-2011","title":{"rendered":"Faiyaz Ahmad vs State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 13 April, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court – Orders<\/div>\n
Faiyaz Ahmad vs State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 13 April, 2011<\/div>\n
                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA\n                             CR. WJC No.636 of 2009\n\n                  Faiyaz Ahmad, s\/o Kamruzama, Secretary, Millat\n                  Teachers Training College, Madhubani\n                                                     ..... PETITIONER\n                                          VERSUS\n                  1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Director\n                  General of Police, Vigilance Investigation Bureau, 6,\n                  Circular Road, Patna- 800001\n                  2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources\n                  Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna\n                  3. Sri Mritunjay Kumar Choudhary, Sr. Deputy\n                  Superintendent of Police- cum- Inquiry Officer,\n                  Vigilance Investigation Bureau, 6, Circular Road, Patna-\n                  800001\n                                                  ....    RESPONDENTS\n                                           ---------\n<\/pre>\n
                  For the Petitioner   : M\/s B. P. Pandey, Sr. Advocate &
\n                                         Jagannath Singh, Advocate
\n                  For the State        : M\/s Lalit Kishore, Sr Advocate &
\n                                          Rabindra Kr. Priyadarshi,
\n                                         AC to AAG I
\n                  For Vigilance        : Arvind Kumar, Spl. PP (Vigilance)\n<\/p>\n
                                           ———\n<\/p>\n
19   13 .4.2011            Heard learned counsel for the petitioner,<\/p>\n
                  learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
                  Vigilance Investigation Bureau.\n<\/p>\n
                           2. Petitioner is Secretary of Millat Teachers<\/p>\n
                  Training College, Madhubani which is claimed to be a<\/p>\n
                  minority unaided institution established in the year 1990.<\/p>\n
                  It claims to have recognition of the State Government
\n               -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
since the academic session 1990-92. It is understood that<\/p>\n
the petitioner claims to have affiliation of its institution<\/p>\n
with Lalit Narayan Mithila University (hereinafter<\/p>\n
referred to as \u201ethe University\u201f) till 1995-96 and thereafter<\/p>\n
it got recognition of the National Council for Teacher<\/p>\n
Education, Eastern Regional Committee since the<\/p>\n
session 1996-97 in the light of provisions of NCTE Act,<\/p>\n
1993 which came into force from 1.7.1995.<\/p>\n
         3.   Petitioner claims that since it is unaided<\/p>\n
minority institution imparting training to teachers to<\/p>\n
enable them to appear in the examination for B. Ed.<\/p>\n
degree, it does not perform any “public duty” and does<\/p>\n
not come within the definition of “public servant” as<\/p>\n
defined under Section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption<\/p>\n
Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as \u201ethe PC Act\u201f). This<\/p>\n
is the basis for challenging a letter bearing no.7096 dated<\/p>\n
6.7.2009 contained in Annexure- 4 series whereby<\/p>\n
respondent no.3, Sr. Deputy Superintendent of Police-<\/p>\n
cum- Inquiry Officer, Vigilance Investigation Bureau has<\/p>\n
requested the petitioner to make available information<\/p>\n
and documents mentioned in letter no.6555 dated
\n               -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
3.6.2009 (Annexure-1) for holding inquiry pursuant to<\/p>\n
letter no.866 dated 27.5.2006 whereby respondent no.2,<\/p>\n
the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development<\/p>\n
Department,    Government      of   Bihar    notified   the<\/p>\n
Additional Director General of Police, Vigilance<\/p>\n
Investigation Bureau, Bihar, Patna to hold inquiry in<\/p>\n
respect of privately managed B. Ed. training colleges in<\/p>\n
reply to and context of letter no.140 of respondent no.2<\/p>\n
dated 20.3.2006 (Annexure- A).\n<\/p>\n
         4. Earlier this writ petition was considered by a<\/p>\n
learned single Judge on 6.10.2010. In the order passed<\/p>\n
on that date the learned single Judge noted all the<\/p>\n
submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner which<\/p>\n
are to the effect that petitioner does not perform any<\/p>\n
“public duty” as defined under Section 2 (b) of the PC<\/p>\n
Act nor does it fall under the definition of “public<\/p>\n
servant” defined under Section 2(c) of that Act and,<\/p>\n
therefore, the Vigilance Investigation Bureau will have<\/p>\n
no jurisdiction to take up inquiry or investigation<\/p>\n
involving the petitioner\u201fs institution.        The other<\/p>\n
submission is that the letter or notice under challenge can
\n                -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
be issued only under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal<\/p>\n
Procedure (hereinafter referred to as \u201eCrPC\u201f) and such<\/p>\n
power cannot be exercised till a regular case is instituted<\/p>\n
by the police. The learned single Judge found the issues<\/p>\n
raised to be of significance and hence, referred the matter<\/p>\n
to Division Bench for consideration.\n<\/p>\n
         5. The same issues of law were raised before<\/p>\n
us by learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner.<\/p>\n
He also raised a plea that now when the NCTE has found<\/p>\n
the petitioner\u201fs institution to be proper and has granted<\/p>\n
recognition, there can be no justification for subjecting it<\/p>\n
to an inquiry by the Vigilance Investigation Bureau.<\/p>\n
         6.    In the context of issues involved, it is<\/p>\n
relevant to refer to the material facts constituting the<\/p>\n
background for the inquiry in question as they appear in<\/p>\n
the letter of the Additional Director General of Police,<\/p>\n
Vigilance     Investigation   Bureau    dated    24.3.2006<\/p>\n
contained in Annexure- A to the counter affidavit of<\/p>\n
respondent no.2. That letter is addressed to the Secretary<\/p>\n
Higher Education Department, Government of Bihar<\/p>\n
(subsequently redesignated as Department of Human
\n                 -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
Resources Development Department).         The subject is<\/p>\n
inquiry in respect of colleges in the private sector<\/p>\n
associated with B. Ed. \/ Dental and other vocational<\/p>\n
courses.    The letter discloses that a team of officials<\/p>\n
constituted by the Chancellor detected irregularities in<\/p>\n
respect of grant of affiliation and publication of results<\/p>\n
for B. Ed. and other courses by the University. The<\/p>\n
details of the irregularities and relevant papers were<\/p>\n
enclosed with letter dated 12.4.1999 issued by the<\/p>\n
Secretariat of Hon\u201fble Chancellor with a direction to the<\/p>\n
Vigilance Investigation Bureau to enquire into the<\/p>\n
matter. Similar request for inquiry were received from<\/p>\n
the Secretariat of Hon\u201fble Chancellor with respect to<\/p>\n
four Dental colleges under the same University and<\/p>\n
Teachers training colleges under B. N. Mandal<\/p>\n
University as well as Magadh University.<\/p>\n
           7.    The said letter (Annexure- A) further<\/p>\n
discloses that Vigilance Investigation Bureau constituted<\/p>\n
a team of officers and selected some colleges for inquiry<\/p>\n
as sample cases.      The result of the inquiry revealed<\/p>\n
cognizable offences leading to registration of regular
\n               -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
cases against seven Teachers training colleges and two<\/p>\n
Dental colleges under LN Mithila University and one<\/p>\n
Teachers training college under Magadh University. The<\/p>\n
letter further discloses that modus operandi adopted by<\/p>\n
all the institutions revealed almost same type of<\/p>\n
irregularities and wrong methods. In respect of some of<\/p>\n
the remaining institutions\/ colleges, inquiry was initiated<\/p>\n
but it could not reach any final conclusion because the<\/p>\n
Vigilance Investigation Bureau got involved in other<\/p>\n
very important cases relating to BPSC scam, Flood<\/p>\n
Relief scam, IGIMS scam etc.              The Vigilance<\/p>\n
Investigation Bureau, vide Annexure- A requested the<\/p>\n
Human     Resources     Development      Department     to<\/p>\n
constitute team of its own officers for holding inquiry in<\/p>\n
respect of other colleges mentioned in the reports<\/p>\n
received from the Secretariat of the Hon\u201fble Governor.<\/p>\n
It was suggested that if in such inquiry cognizable<\/p>\n
offences were detected then criminal cases may be<\/p>\n
instituted either with the local police or with the<\/p>\n
Vigilance Investigation Bureau.\n<\/p>\n
         8.    In the context of aforesaid letter of the
\n              -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
Additional Director General of Police, Vigilance<\/p>\n
Investigation Bureau, a reply was sent by the<\/p>\n
Commissioner- cum- Secretary of the Human Resources<\/p>\n
Development Department through letter no.866 dated<\/p>\n
27.5.2006 with a direction that inquiry in respect of<\/p>\n
remaining B. Ed. training colleges should also be<\/p>\n
conducted by the Vigilance Investigation Bureau. As<\/p>\n
mentioned in the counter affidavit of respondent no.2,<\/p>\n
the Vigilance Investigation Bureau vide its letter no.365<\/p>\n
dated 1.6.2006 accepted to complete the inquiry in<\/p>\n
respect of rest 11 colleges and that has led to inquiry<\/p>\n
against petitioner\u201fs institution and issuance of the<\/p>\n
impugned letter\/ notice.\n<\/p>\n
         9. On behalf of the respondents strong reliance<\/p>\n
was placed upon the facts emerging from Annexures A<\/p>\n
and B to the counter affidavit of respondent no.2 for<\/p>\n
advancing the submission that the illegalities or<\/p>\n
irregularities requiring inquiry relate to earlier period<\/p>\n
when the concerned University had granted affiliations<\/p>\n
and published results of examination of B. Ed. courses<\/p>\n
and in relation to such acts, a team of high officials
\n               -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
constituted by the Chancellor of the Universities of Bihar<\/p>\n
had found irregularities which led the Chancellor to issue<\/p>\n
directions for inquiry by the Vigilance       Investigation<\/p>\n
Bureau.    On behalf of the respondents reliance was<\/p>\n
placed upon Section 9 (2) of the Bihar State Universities<\/p>\n
Act, 1976 which reads as follows :\n<\/p>\n
     ” 9.(2) The Chancellor shall have the powers to
\n     inspect the university, its buildings, laboratories,
\n     workshops and equipment, any College or
\n     hostel, the teaching or examinations conducted,
\n     or any act done by the university, and to get such
\n     inspection done by such person or persons who
\n     may be directed by him and to inquire or to
\n     cause an inquiry made, in like manner, in respect
\n     of any matter connected with the University and
\n     it shall be the duty of the officers of the
\n     concerned University and College to render
\n     necessary assistance in such inspection :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               Provided that the Chancellor shall, in
\n     every case, inform the Vice Chancellor of his
\n     intention to inspect or inquire or to get the
\n     inspection or inquiry conducted and the
\n     University shall be entitled to representation
\n     therein.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          10. In order to avoid the effect of aforesaid<\/p>\n
statutory provision under which the Chancellor has<\/p>\n
powers to get inquiry made in respect of any matter<\/p>\n
connected with the University and corresponding duty of<\/p>\n
the officers of the University and the College to render<\/p>\n
necessary assistance, learned counsel for the petitioner
\n              -9-<\/span><\/p>\n
attempted to make a distinction between “affiliated<\/p>\n
college” and “constituent college” which are separately<\/p>\n
defined under Section 2(c) and 2 (i) of the Bihar State<\/p>\n
Universities Act. That distinction is found to be of no<\/p>\n
substance because Section 9 (2) mentions “any College”<\/p>\n
without making any distinction between affiliated<\/p>\n
college and constituent college. Hence, the inquiry in<\/p>\n
the instant case by the Vigilance Investigation Bureau is<\/p>\n
clearly permitted under the statutory provisions noticed<\/p>\n
above.   This view is supported by a Division Bench<\/p>\n
judgment of this Court in the case of Md. Salahuddin<\/p>\n
Sarwar v. State of Bihar,<\/a> 2000 (1) PLJR 64. In that<\/p>\n
case also the petitioner represented a private unaided<\/p>\n
college and identical issues relating to authority of the<\/p>\n
Chancellor to direct such inquiry and the power of the<\/p>\n
Vigilance Department to hold the inquiry was under<\/p>\n
challenge. The Division Bench upheld the authority of<\/p>\n
the Chancellor as well as power of the Vigilance<\/p>\n
Department and also the views of the learned single<\/p>\n
Judge that genuineness and otherwise of the claims of<\/p>\n
the petitioner college was not required to be gone into at\n<\/p>\n
                 – 10 –\n<\/p>\n
a stage where the Vigilance Department was only<\/p>\n
conducting an inquiry and no case had been instituted.<\/p>\n
The Division Bench also placed reliance upon judgment<\/p>\n
of the Supreme Court in the case of R. P. Kapur and<\/p>\n
others v. Sardar Pratap Singh Kairon and others<\/a>, AIR<\/p>\n
1961 SC 1117, to highlight that Section 154 of the CrPC<\/p>\n
does not lay down that information of a cognizable<\/p>\n
offence can only be given to officer incharge of the<\/p>\n
police station.          It is not in dispute that Vigilance<\/p>\n
Investigation     Bureau       is   a   police   station   whose<\/p>\n
jurisdiction extends over the whole State. The aforesaid<\/p>\n
Division Bench judgment is a complete answer to the<\/p>\n
contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. The<\/p>\n
Vigilance Department of the State Government cannot<\/p>\n
be faulted for respecting the statutory powers of the<\/p>\n
Chancellor and the inquiry being conducted by Vigilance<\/p>\n
Investigation Bureau has the sanctity of law and as an<\/p>\n
affiliated college or a college for which examination was<\/p>\n
conducted by the University, the petitioner\u201fs institution<\/p>\n
is required to render all assistance in such inquiry.<\/p>\n
         11.        A similar view was taken by another\n<\/p>\n
                – 11 –\n<\/p>\n
Division Bench of this Court in the case of Satish<\/p>\n
Kumar v. V.C., Bhupendra Nr. Mandal University,<\/a><\/p>\n
2007 (2) PLJR 682. In paragraph 11 of that judgment<\/p>\n
reference was made to Section 9 (2) of the Bihar State<\/p>\n
Universities Act and after quoting the same it was held<\/p>\n
as follows :\n<\/p>\n
           ” …… In view of the express provision in
\n         the Act, it is futile to suggest that the
\n         Chancellor had no power to ask the
\n         Vigilance Department to enquire into the
\n         matter of grant of affiliation\/ recognition to
\n         the College. ……..”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         12.      Learned counsel for the respondents<\/p>\n
advanced a further submission that only because the<\/p>\n
petitioner is an unaided educational institution it cannot<\/p>\n
be said that it is not performing a public duty. In support<\/p>\n
of this proposition reliance was placed upon a judgment<\/p>\n
of the Supreme Court in the case of Unni Krishnan v.<\/p>\n
State of A.P., (1993) 1 SCC 645. That case related also<\/p>\n
to running of private unaided educational institutions and<\/p>\n
conducting professional courses and in paragraph 79 it<\/p>\n
was held that these educational institutions discharge<\/p>\n
public duty irrespective of the fact whether they are<\/p>\n
receiving aid or not.\n<\/p>\n
                 – 12 –\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
          13. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner<\/p>\n
placed reliance upon judgment of the Supreme Court in<\/p>\n
the case of State of Maharashtra v. Sant Dnyaneshwar<\/p>\n
Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya,<\/a> (2006) 9 SCC 1, for<\/p>\n
supporting a submission that after coming into force of<\/p>\n
the NCTE Act, 1993, the control over institutions<\/p>\n
recognized by the NCTE vests only in the latter and the<\/p>\n
State Government has no power to take any decision in<\/p>\n
respect of an institution recognized by the NCTE. This<\/p>\n
proposition has no relevance in the present case because<\/p>\n
the inquiry ordered by the Chancellor and the State<\/p>\n
Government relate to an earlier period when the<\/p>\n
concerned       University    had    allegedly     committed<\/p>\n
irregularities \/ illegalities in granting affiliation to and\/or<\/p>\n
conducting examination for the concerned institutions.<\/p>\n
          14.      The issue relating to applicability of<\/p>\n
provisions of the PC Act to the petitioner\u201fs institution is<\/p>\n
found to be entirely misconceived.           The inquiry is<\/p>\n
primarily against the irregular or illegal acts of the<\/p>\n
University. The colleges or the institutions that might<\/p>\n
have or are suspected to have abetted omission of\n<\/p>\n
              – 13 –\n<\/p>\n
offences by officials of the University will definitely be<\/p>\n
covered by the provisions of the PC Act even if such<\/p>\n
colleges are themselves not covered by the definition of<\/p>\n
“public servant” under Section 2(c) of the PC Act.<\/p>\n
         15. As a result of aforesaid discussions, it is<\/p>\n
found that the inquiry being conducted by the Vigilance<\/p>\n
Investigation Bureau does not contravene any provision<\/p>\n
of the PC Act or CrPC and is mandated by Section 9 (2)<\/p>\n
of the Bihar State Universities Act. It is further found<\/p>\n
that subsequent recognition by the NCTE is of no<\/p>\n
consequence so far as the present inquiry is concerned<\/p>\n
because the same relates to an earlier period. It is made<\/p>\n
clear that we have not gone into the merits of petitioner\u201fs<\/p>\n
claim of innocence because it is not an appropriate stage<\/p>\n
for embarking upon such an inquiry by this Court. It<\/p>\n
may be relevant to mention here that a similar objection<\/p>\n
with regard to inquiry by the Vigilance Investigation<\/p>\n
Bureau was raised in an earlier writ petition filed by<\/p>\n
private Teachers training college association bearing<\/p>\n
CWJC No.7159 of 2006 and the said writ petition was<\/p>\n
dismissed by this Court on 21.9.2006 as per averment in\n<\/p>\n
                      – 14 –\n<\/p>\n
      paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit filed by respondent<\/p>\n
      no.1 which has not been disputed.\n<\/p>\n
               16.     In the final analysis, we find no merit in<\/p>\n
      this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed.<\/p>\n
                                (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)<\/p>\n
                I agree
\n                               (Gopal Prasad, J.)<\/p>\n
AFR<\/p>\n
sk\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court – Orders Faiyaz Ahmad vs State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 13 April, 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.636 of 2009 Faiyaz Ahmad, s\/o Kamruzama, Secretary, Millat Teachers Training College, Madhubani ….. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Director General of Police, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,27],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-206877","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-patna-high-court-orders"],"yoast_head":"\nFaiyaz Ahmad vs State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 13 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/faiyaz-ahmad-vs-state-of-bihar-amp-ors-on-13-april-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Faiyaz Ahmad vs State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 13 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/faiyaz-ahmad-vs-state-of-bihar-amp-ors-on-13-april-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-04-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-01T22:43:22+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/faiyaz-ahmad-vs-state-of-bihar-amp-ors-on-13-april-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/faiyaz-ahmad-vs-state-of-bihar-amp-ors-on-13-april-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Faiyaz Ahmad vs State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 13 April, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-01T22:43:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/faiyaz-ahmad-vs-state-of-bihar-amp-ors-on-13-april-2011\"},\"wordCount\":2314,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Patna High Court - Orders\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/faiyaz-ahmad-vs-state-of-bihar-amp-ors-on-13-april-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/faiyaz-ahmad-vs-state-of-bihar-amp-ors-on-13-april-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/faiyaz-ahmad-vs-state-of-bihar-amp-ors-on-13-april-2011\",\"name\":\"Faiyaz Ahmad vs State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 13 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-01T22:43:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/faiyaz-ahmad-vs-state-of-bihar-amp-ors-on-13-april-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/faiyaz-ahmad-vs-state-of-bihar-amp-ors-on-13-april-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/faiyaz-ahmad-vs-state-of-bihar-amp-ors-on-13-april-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Faiyaz Ahmad vs State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 13 April, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Faiyaz Ahmad vs State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 13 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/faiyaz-ahmad-vs-state-of-bihar-amp-ors-on-13-april-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Faiyaz Ahmad vs State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 13 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/faiyaz-ahmad-vs-state-of-bihar-amp-ors-on-13-april-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-04-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-01T22:43:22+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/faiyaz-ahmad-vs-state-of-bihar-amp-ors-on-13-april-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/faiyaz-ahmad-vs-state-of-bihar-amp-ors-on-13-april-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Faiyaz Ahmad vs State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 13 April, 2011","datePublished":"2011-04-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-01T22:43:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/faiyaz-ahmad-vs-state-of-bihar-amp-ors-on-13-april-2011"},"wordCount":2314,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Patna High Court - Orders"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/faiyaz-ahmad-vs-state-of-bihar-amp-ors-on-13-april-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/faiyaz-ahmad-vs-state-of-bihar-amp-ors-on-13-april-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/faiyaz-ahmad-vs-state-of-bihar-amp-ors-on-13-april-2011","name":"Faiyaz Ahmad vs State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 13 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-04-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-01T22:43:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/faiyaz-ahmad-vs-state-of-bihar-amp-ors-on-13-april-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/faiyaz-ahmad-vs-state-of-bihar-amp-ors-on-13-april-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/faiyaz-ahmad-vs-state-of-bihar-amp-ors-on-13-april-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Faiyaz Ahmad vs State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 13 April, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/206877","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=206877"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/206877\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=206877"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=206877"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=206877"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}