IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4507 of 2003 1.INDIAN INSTITUTE OF PARA MEDICAL TRAINING, Rukanpura, Bailey Road, Patna-14 through its Director (Welfare) Ashok Kumar Singh. 2.Sri Ashok Kumar Singh S/O Sri Chandrama Singh, Director (Welfare), Indian Institute of Para Medical Training, Rukanpura, Bailey Road, Patna-14, Resident of Ramjaipal Nagar, P.O.-Danapur, P.S.-Danapur, District-Patna. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Secretary, Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2.The Secretary, Health Medical Education and Family Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3.The Additional Secretary, Health Medical Education and Family Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4.The Joint Secretary, Health Medical Education and Family Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 5.The Director in Chief, Health Services, Bihar Patna. ----------- 3 31/7/2009 From a reading of the writ application it would appear that the case of recognition of the petitioner Institution, Indian Institute of Para Medical Training, Rukanpura, is pending before the authorities of the Health Department, Government of Bihar. In fact in absence of counter affidavit it has to be presumed that there was a inspection report dated 26.5.1999 as contained in Annexure- 5 in terms of the order of the Government dated 17th September, 1998 (Annexure-4) which had at least given legitimate expectation to the petitioner for being communicated the final decision as with regard to recognition of the institution in question. As noted above, there is no counter affidavit to deny the facts asserted by the petitioner as with regard to pendency of 2 its recognition before the authorities of the State Government including the Respondents. Therefore, in view of inspection report submitted by the authority in the light of the order of the head of the department, this much can be observed in favour of the petitioner that if a decision for grant of recognition of petitioner- institution has not been taken till now, the same must be taken in accordance with law and communicated to the petitioner within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Let it be made clear that this Court has not gone into merits of claim of the petitioner and has simply disposed of the matter only by treating the case of the petitioner for recognition to be still pending. If however case of the petitioner has already been disposed of, nothing said in this order will confer a fresh right to the petitioner for a reconsideration of the same issue and the Respondents would only intimate the petitioner such earlier decision by sending a copy of the earlier order within the same period as indicated above. With the aforementioned observations/directions this application is finally disposed of. Abhay Kumar (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)