MJC No.3509 OF 1997 In the matter of an application under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. TARA MEHTA SANT KABIR SANSKRIT--Petitioner Versus STATE OF BIHAR--------------Opposite- Party For the Petitioner:-Mr.Shravan Kumar,Senior Advocate & Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sinha,Advocate For Opp-party No.3:-Mr.Amresh Kumar Sinha, J.C. to G.P.XV For Sanskrit Shiksha Board :-Mr. Tej Bahadur Singh, Advocate. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRAMAULI KUMAR PRASAD THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DR. RAVI RANJAN Prasad & Ranjan,JJ;-This application has been filed for initiating a proceeding for contempt against the Opposite party for disobedience of the order dated 30.8.1995 passed in MJC No. 751 of 1994. In a batch of writ applications this Court directed the State Government and the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board to frame rules and regulations for grant of recognition to Sanskrit Schools and then consider the case for grant of recognition. 2 Complaining non-compliance of the aforesaid order, petitioner filed MJC No. 751 of 1994 (Tara Mehta Sant Kabir Sanskrit High School Vs. State of Bihar & ors.).This Court by order dated 30th of August, 1995 disposed of the application giving liberty to the petitioners to file fresh application before the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board for consideration of the recommendation. This Court further directed the Board to consider the application of recognition within six months. In this contempt application, it has been averred that although fresh application was filed for grant of recognition but no decision has been taken. Show cause has been filed on behalf of the Chairman, Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board in which it has been stated that the case of the petitioner for recognition was considered and the Board having found that the school has not fulfilled the condition rejected the same by order dated 7.9.1998(Annexure-A). Mr. Shravan Kumar, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner attempted to assail the aforesaid order. He points out that the ultimate order declining the recognition is not based on the inspection report. We are afraid, present proceeding is not an appropriate proceeding to go into this question. 3 It has also been brought to our notice that inspection was again made on 4.1.2005 and the facts found in the said inspection report justifies recognition. We are of the opinion that this gives the petitioner a separate cause of action. We are of the opinion that this is not a fit case in which Opposite party deserve to be punished for contempt of Court. The contempt application is dismissed accordingly. (Chandramauli Kr.Prasad,J.) (Dr.Ravi Ranjan,J.) Patna High Court Dated the 17th of July,2008 A.Kumar/NAFR