IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4168 of 2010 1. Dr. Birendra Nath Pandey S/O Late Vidya Nand Pandey R/O Balu Tal, P.S. Motihari, Distt.- East Champaran. Versus 1. The District Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari 2. Shri Narmdeshwar Lall, The District Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari. 3. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Department of Art & Culture, Govt. of Bihar. ---------------------------------- 7. 22.9.2011. Heard Mr. Rajendra Kumar Giri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Mr. Prabhat Kumar Verma, learned AAG-5 for the State. The writ petition was filed questioning the notice issued by the District Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari as contained in memo no.525 dated 3.3.2010 placed at Annexure-3 of the writ petition, whereby the petitioner was put to a show cause as regarding mismanagement in organizing Champaran Sanskritik Mahotsav. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a retired University Professor and though was associated with the Champaran Sanskritik Samittee, being the founder member thereof, but subsequently, he resigned from the Samittee. It is the case of the petitioner that after resignation from the membership of the said 2 Samittee, he joined the post of Vice Chancellor of Magadh University in the year 2006 and since then, he had not held any post under the Samittee. It is the case of the petitioner that the said Samittee organized a Sanskritik Mahotsav from 11.2.2010 to 13.2.2010 in which the noted actress and classical dancer Ms. Hema Malini was to perform. It is the case of the petitioner that though being nowhere connected with the said festivity or with the organization of the said event, he has been put to notice by the District Magistrate cum Collector, East Champaran, initially by notice dated 15.02.2010 which was responded to by him vide letter dated 18.2.2010, but not being satisfied, a second notice was again issued by the District Magistrate cum Collector, East Champaran, Motihari on 3.3.2010, this time requiring the petitioner to clarify the position and also to show cause as to why necessary proceedings under the civil and criminal Laws be not initiated against him. It is in these circumstances that the writ petition has been filed. As already noted, the contention of the petitioner has been that since after his 3 resignation from the membership of the Samittee in the year 2006, i.e after he joined as Vice Chancellor, Magadh university, he did not hold any post in the Samittee, although he was working for the welfare thereof in the capacity of a founder member. It is the stand of the petitioner that as he did not hold any post within the Samittee, he could not be made answerable for the events which took place subsequent to his resignation. A counter affidavit had initially been filed in the present proceedings in which a stand was taken that the matter has been reported to the department of Art and Culture and the Registrar General, Government of Bihar for taking appropriate decision in this regard. In the aforesaid circumstances, the State of Bihar through its Secretary, Department of Art and Culture was added as respondent no.3 to the present proceedings. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Secretary, Respondent No.3, today enclosing a report submitted by the District Magistrate cum Collector, East Champaran, Motihari dated 16.3.2010, i.e. subsequent to the issuance of the notice to the petitioner. The District 4 Magistrate cum Collector, East Champaran, Motihari, while addressing the Secretary, Art, Culture and Youth Department, Govt. of Bihar, has mentioned the sequence of events, in which notice was issued to the petitioner who also filed his response but which was not to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate cum Collector, East Champaran, Motihari. Taking note of the aforesaid circumstances, the District Magistrate cum Collector, East Champaran, Motihari by the aforesaid letter dated l6.3.2010 recommended for appropriate action by the Secretary, Art and Culture. It is the case of the petitioner that the said report is sans any evidence and that the District Magistrate cum Collector, East Champaran, Motihari has submitted the same without providing any opportunity to the petitioner to vindicate his stand. Learned counsel submits that given an opportunity, the petitioner would have been able to satisfy the District Magistrate that he had absolutely no role in organizing the Mahotsav nor did he have any financial control over the same. He submits that even in absence of any such findings, the District Magistrate has submitted his report 5 charging the petitioner of being a party to the mismanagement and which has been acted upon by the respondent Secretary. A perusal of paragraph no.6 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no.3, manifests that following the report of the District Magistrate as contained in Annexure-A series of the counter affidavit, the department had taken a decision to stop all grants in favour of the Champaran Sanskritik Mahotsav Samittee and also had recommended for cancellation of the registration of the said Society by the Registration department. It was also decided to organize any further Mahotsav at Motihari in the district of East Champaran, at State Level. It is necessary to mention here that the counter affidavit filed by the respondent no.3 though taking note of report of the District Magistrate dated 16.3.2010, has not referred to any purported action to be taken against the petitioner. In that view of the matter, this court, prima facie, is satisfied that no immediate apprehension arises for the petitioner to maintain the writ petition and which is disposed of with an observation that if 6 the Secretary, department of Art, Culture and Youth Affairs, at any stage, proceeds to take appropriate action against the petitioner, he may do so but not without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to defend his case. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. ahk (Jyoti Saran, J.)