IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.227 of 2009 THE SECRETARY,MAN.COMM.,TILKA . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 3/ 23/06/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner who is the Secretary of the Managing Committee, Tilka Manjhi Kanya Uchch Vidyalaya, Bhagalpur, is aggrieved by the order dated 23.6.2008 passed by the Deputy Directory, Secondary Education, declining grant of recognition on the ground that the educational institution did not fulfil the prescribed mandate with regard to land and building. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the school was inspected earlier on 10.9.1996 and found to possess land and building fulfilling conditions of recognition. The respondents in the counter affidavit contended that the District Education Officer was requested on 22.6.2006 to send necessary report after conducting spot inspection of the school. A report dated 31.1.2007 was received and was then considered on the issue of recognition which has been rejected by the order dated 28.12.2007. 2 This Court on 19.4.2011 required the respondents to bring on record the inspection report dated 31.1.2007. Learned counsel for the State has produced a Xerox copy of the report dated 31.12.2007. Correctly speaking, it should have been placed on record by way of an affidavit. The order produced is directed to be kept on record. The inspection report states that the institution had lands available. It also mentions with regard to the availability of building at column-4. It is therefore manifest that it is not a case where barren lands were claimed to be a school. The authorities in their inspection dated 31.1.2007 did find that the institution was in possession of lands and constructions stood thereupon details whereof are mentioned in the inspection report. Contrary to the same the impugned order is vague and hardly helpful in adjudication. Little did the respondents realize that if their order was subject to challenge by the aggrieved before a competent forum, their order was required to be reasoned and discussed. The requirement of the law not complied was a necessity to be mentioned in the impugned order in comparison to what was found on the site during inspection to arrive at the conclusion how and in what manner the requirements for 3 recognition were not fulfilled. The order dated 23.6.2008 is set aside. An inspection is already stated to have been held on 31.1.2007 and a report is available. All that is now required is to pass a fresh, reasoned and speaking order so that litigation is brought to an end and not continued by the respondents by passing orders which are inconclusive in nature and not specific. The Deputy Director, Primary, Secondary and Adult Education shall ensure that the authorities pass a reasoned and speaking order on the issue of recognition within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before him. The application stands allowed, but only to the extent indicated. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)