IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.315 of 2008 GANGA MAHTO & ORS Versus RAJ KUMAR PRASAD & ORS ----------- For the Appellant : Mr. Nand Bansh Narain Singh. For the Respondents: Mr. Shivendra Kishore. ------------ P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ------------ Dated, the 16th July, 2008. We heard counsel for the appellant. He would submit that the order dated 19.09.2006 of which review has been made and which is referred to in the order dated 14.10.1996 was not an order as it was never pronounced. He also submitted that before the order dated 14.10.1996 came to be passed, the original petitioner (present respondent nos. 1 and 2) were not noticed. 2. Clause (4 Ka) of Section 9 of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 confers a power of review upon the Chancellor for reviewing his own order if he deems it in the interest of justice or where such order suffers from a mistake apparent on the face of the record. 3. Section 60 of the Act of 1976 which provides for composition of the governing body, inter alia, provides that one of its members shall be elected by such donors from amongst themselves who have donated atleast Rs.25,000/- to the College. The present - 2 - appellants as well as respondent nos. 1 and 2 (original petitioners) claim to be the donors. It appears that initially by an order dated 19.9.1996, the respondent nos. 1 and 2 (original petitioners) were declared as donors by the Chancellor but the said order was reviewed vide order dated 14.10.1996 and the present appellant nos. 1 and 2 and two other persons, namely, Sheo Prasad and Sohan Lal were declared as donors while the respondent nos. 1 and 2 (original petitioners) were held to be not donors. The present respondent nos. 1 and 2 challenged the order of the Chancellor passed on 14.10.1996. One of the grounds of challenge was that the order of review dated 14.10.1996 has been passed at their back. 4. The Single Judge held that the order dated 14.10.1996 suffered from infraction of principles of natural justice as it came to be passed at the back of the petitioners and, consequently, set aside the same. It is this order of the Single Judge which is impugned in the present appeal. 5. Since it was an admitted case of the original respondent nos. 1 to 4 in response to the writ petition that the order dated 19.9.1996 came to be passed by the Chancellor, we find no merit in the submission of the counsel for the appellants that no order came to be passed by the Chancellor on 19.9.1996. Once the order dated 19.9.1996 is held to have been passed by the Chancellor, before the said order could be reviewed, in exercise of the power conferred under section 9(4 Ka) of the Act of 1976, it was incumbent upon the - 3 - Chancellor to give notice to the original petitioners as by that order they were declared as donors. Seen thus, the order of the Single Judge cannot be faulted. Letters Patent Appeal does not deserve to be admitted. 6. It is dismissed in limine. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J AMIN/-