IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10946 of 2010 1. BADRI MAHTO S/O LATE SUBA LAL MAHTO R/O MOHALLA- NEW PUNAICHAK, P.S.- SACHIVALAYA, DISTT.- PATNA, NOW AS ACTING PRESIDENT, BIHAR PRADESH SANSKRIT SHIKCHAK MAHASANGH, PATNA. 2. KALIKA PRASAD SINGH S/O LATE RAM ZADA SINGH R/O MOHALLA- R/F-334, KANKARBAGH COLONY, P.S.- KANKARBAGH, DISTT.- PATNA. ………Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. HE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKASH BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. SIDHESHWAR PRASAD, THE CHAIRMAN BIHAR SANSKRIT SHIKSHA BOARD, PATNA. 4. OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, THE SECRETARY, BIHAR SANSKRIT SHIKSHA BOARD, PATNA. ……..Respondents. ----------- 4 04.03.2011 Nobody appears for the petitioners. Mr. Y.V. Giri appears for respondent nos. 3 and 4. Learned counsel for the State is also present. Mr. P.N. Pathak, Advocate submits that he appears for Intervenor- petitioner in I.A. No. 935 of 2011 for being impleaded as a petitioner in this public interest litigation. If the facts stated in the counter affidavit of respondent nos. 3 and 4 be accepted as correct then some persons are aggrieved by appointment of one Sidheshwar Prasad as Chairman of the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, - 2 - through a notification dated 15.09.2008 and such notification and appointment was challenged through a writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 17378 of 2008. But ultimately that writ petition was found to be without merits and was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 11th February, 2009 contained in Annexure-B. It has been submitted by Mr. Y.V. Giri that the same people have set up other persons who are merely name lenders to question the official acts of the said chairman and of the Secretary of the Sanskrit Shiksha Board, through this public interest litigation filed in July, 2010. According to him the Board is a statutory authority and if any person is aggrieved by any order or action of the Chairman he can maintain individual writ petition against wrong orders or actions of the Chairman but the present public interest litigation seeks to vaguely challenge all the orders and decisions of the Chairman in a generalized manner only to see that the Chairman respondent no. 3 is not allowed to function peacefully. In a public interest litigation the prime issues for decision should not be adversarial. Once an issue of general public interest is found fit to be taken up as a - 3 - subject matter of public interest litigation, subsequent controversies may become necessary to be decided in order to promote public interest. However, when a writ petition is founded against official acts of a statutory authority or its Chairman, it is prima facie an adversarial litigation. Since nobody appears for the petitioner, we are not inclined to go further into merits of the matter. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. It may be mentioned here that the counsel for the Intervener prays to withdraw I.A. No. 935 of 2011, hence the same is disposed of as withdrawn. It goes without saying that the Intervener would be at liberty to select his own course of future action in accordance with law. PN ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J) ( Gopal Prasad, J)