IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14670 of 2007 BINDESHWARI PRASAD SINGH S/O LATE FEKAN PRASAD SINGH, PRINCIPAL, RAMDEO ASHARFI INTERMEDIATE COLLEGE, SHAMBHUGANJ, BANKA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE BANKA 3. S.D.O. BANKA 4. THE ANCHAL ADHIKARI, SHAMBHUGANJ BLOCK 5. THE MANAGING COMMITTEE RAMDEO ASHARFI COLLEGE ---------- 14 01.02.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and intervenor- respondent. The petitioner has challenged letter no. 325 dated 8.10.2007, issued by respondent no.4 restraining them from interfering in any manner in possession of the land, building and other infrastructure of Ramdeo Asharfi. The petitioner also prays for calling upon respondents to produce letter no.3 dated 8.10.2007 and further an award of compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs. Case of the petitioner in short is as follows:- According to petitioner, villagers of Shambhuganj and of neighbouring villages established Ramdeo Asharfi college at Shambhuganj. Citizens of the locality contributed fund and collage purchased 7.10 acres of land at Shambhuganj, details of which is mentioned in para 5 of the writ petition. The land was mutated in the name of college in the revenue records of the respondents. Students were admitted in petitioner’s college for 1979-81 session of Intermediate classes, who were allowed to appear in the intermediate exam conducted by the Bhagalpur University, as a private candidate after obtaining due permission. In the year, 1981 Bihar Intermediate Education Council (in short the Council) was formed and examination of students connected with petitioner’s college was being taken by the Council itself. Thereafter, on application of the petitioner of the - 2 - College for grant of recognition, the same was allowed by the Council in its meeting dated 16.2.1982, circulated through order dated 6.3.1982 vide memo no. 790/S/C which is contained in annexure 2. However, the Counsel directed not to impart education up to degree standard in the College. Petitioner claims that right from 1982 onwards intermediate students of the College appeared in the examination conducted by the Council. Pursuant to a communiqué no. 43-93 dated 28.11.1983 issued by the Council, the word ‘Intermediate’ was added in the name of the College. As such, the college came into being as Ramdeo Asharfi Intermediate College, Shambhuganj, Banka and information to this effect was sent to the Council. The Circle officer also issued necessary land possession certificate on 1.5.2006, vide annexure 4. The petitioner states that the Degree college was started after bifurcation from the Intermediate College towards eastern side of Shambhuganj-Banka Road. It is asserted that the Decree college has no concern with land and building of Intermediate college. The petitioner states that at the instance of the political leaders, interference is being caused with the working of the Intermediate college. The Circle officer vide his impugned letter no. 325 dated 8.10.2007 issued direction to the petitioner to immediately vacate the Intermediate college believing that the latter has illegally occupied the building which belongs to the Degree college. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order as being wholly illegal and not sustainable in the eye of law. He submits that it would appear from annexure C filed on behalf of respondent no.2 to 4 that the Degree college is situated on its own plot mentioned in - 3 - detail thereof. He states that report would show that the assets and liabilities of both the Colleges are separate. He further assails the impugned order on the ground that the same has been issued without providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Interlocutory Application was filed on behalf of the Managing Committee of Ramdeo Asharfi College for being added as intervenor application. This court vide order dated 20.11.2009 allowed the intervenor application for being added as party respondent. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of intervenor respondent stating that the sale deed was made in favour of the College and not specifically in respect of Intermediate college. He further submits that on 14.3.1992, the Governing body of the College took three important decisions, one of which was to establish a separate college each for Intermediate education and also for under graduate education. The intervenor respondent further states that all the relevant documents of the College remained exclusively with the establishment of the College and now the Intermediate college was not handing over the documents. A team of Bhagalpur University mad an inspection on 8.11.1990, whose report shows that the land claimed by the petitioner actually belongs to the College. Counsel for the petitioner controverted the claim of intervenor respondent that the inspection report would show that the land and buildings on which the Intermediate college stand belong to it. However, the intervenor respondent further states that in any view of the matter, the mutation was in favour of the College and not in favour of the Intermediate college. It appears from the Inspection report that both the colleges have - 4 - separate land and buildings. Furthermore, there is no denial in the counter affidavit that petitioner was given any opportunity before issuing the impugned letter dated 8.10.2007 as contained in annexure 1, by which the Circle officer has directed the principal of the Intermediate college to vacate the premises of Degree college within 24 hours on the premises that it has been illegally occupied by the Intermediate college. It is well settled that no order to the prejudice of any party entailing civil consequences can be passed without affording opportunity of hearing. In the present case, I find that no opportunity has been given to the Intermediate college before issuing letter dated 8.10.2007. As such, letter no. 325 dated 8.10.2007 contained in annexure 1 is set aside with direction to the respondent authorities to pass appropriate order in accordance with law only after providing opportunity of hearing to both parties. Parties are at liberty to place their cases points including the issue of jurisdiction before the respondent authorities. It goes without saying that the Court has not gone into the merits of the case. The writ petition stands disposed of. Shashi. (Samarendra Pratap Singh,J).