IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2269 of 2007 Amar Prasad Singh s/o Sri Ramchandra Pd. Singh, r/o village – Bighra, Rampur, P.S. Muzaffarpur Sadar, District – Muzaffarpur, Head of the Department of Commerce of Mahanth Ramrup Goswami College, Bettiah, District – West Champaran and Presently the Secretary of Bihar Intermediate Lok Hit Yachika Samiti ……. Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Sri A.K. Chaudhary, presently posted as the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna 3. Sri Naveen Kumar, presently posted as the Finance Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 4. Sri Anjani Kumar Singh, Secretary Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna …………… Respondents ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. V.K.Singh, Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh, Advocates For the respondents: Mr. Roy Shivaji Nath, AAG - IV 4 11/8/2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the supplementary show cause filed on behalf of the State. This court wanted the State Government to consider report of a committee and take a policy decision regarding Vit-Rahit Education System in the Secondary/ + II Level Non-Governmental Schools. The supplementary show cause discloses that after the order passed in this case on 22.4.2009, on 19.5.2009 by a resolution no.538, the Department of 2 Human Resources Development, State of Bihar, has taken a policy decision to end the Vit- Rahit Education Policy to a limited extent by providing grant in aid to such Secondary/ +II Schools which have already been granted permission for establishment/affiliation. A copy of the resolution no.538 has been annexed as Annexure – B to the supplementary show cause. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the report of the committee has not been considered by the State Government while formulating the aforesaid policy nor they have considered the representation of the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner could not be satisfied with anything less than full acceptance of the report of the committee but that was not the order of this court nor it would be in public interest to restrict the wisdom of the government in matters of policy formulation. The stand of the respondent – State is clear that it has considered all relevant materials to formulate its policy on the relevant subject. 3 In the facts of the case, we find that no case for contempt has been made out. This application is, therefore, dismissed. Neyaz/ (Shiva Kirti Singh, ACJ.) (Anjana Prakash, J.)