IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.952 of 2010 1. DR. (SMT.) MAHAMAYA VERMA W/O LATE MAHESHWAR NATH VERMA R/O GANJ NO.- 1, HOSPITAL ROAD, P.S.- BETTIAH SADAR & P.O.- BETTIAH, DISTT.- WEST CHAMPARAN Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. DEEPAK KUMAR S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER AT PRESENT POSTED AS S.D.O. ( CIVIL ) BETTIAH SADAR, BETTIAH, WEST CHAMPARAN 3. DR. VIBHASH YADAV S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER AT PRESENT POSTED AS REGISTRAR, B.R.A. BIHAR UNIVERSITY, MUZAFFARPUR 4. DR. RAJDEO SINGH S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER AT PRESENT FUNCTIONING AS VICE-CHANCELLOR, B.R.A. UNIVERSITY, MUZAFFARPUR 5. SMT. RENU DEVI W/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER MEMBER, AD-HOC COMMITTEE, M.N.M. MAHILA COLLEGE, BETTIAH, WEST CHAMPARAN ----------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. Mukul Sinha, Adv. For the University:- Mr. Rajendra Kumar Giri, Adv. ------------------- 4. 04.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, State and for the University. A show cause is stated to have been filed today on behalf of the University. The office shall place it on record. The Court requested the counsel for the University to make available his copy for perusal. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the statement made in Paragraph-3 of the show cause on behalf of the University that an office order No. B/2302 has been issued on 6.9.2010, constituting a Governing body shall not suffice unless and until notification in terms of Section 60 is issued. There is 2 no statement in the show cause that the notification under Section 60 has been issued. The petitioner is not aware whether her name figures in the governing body or not to enable her to decide her course of action and no statement either ways has been made in the show cause. Counsel for the University submits that the actions of the University in constituting the governing body are strictly and literally in accordance with the statutory provisions though the pleadings in Paragraph-3 in that regard may be incomplete as of date. The show cause being on behalf of the Registrar and the Vice Chancellor, the Court has no reason to doubt the submission made on their behalf that statutory requirement for constitution of the governing body have been fully complied with as of date. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the constitution of the new governing body, that enquiry cannot be held any further in the contempt jurisdiction, as remedy shall lie in a fresh writ application only. The proceeding stands disposed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.) 3