IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA --- MJC No.1212 of 2005 --- GAYETRI PRATHMIK SAH MADHYA SA Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Durga Nand Jha For the respondents: Mr. Lalit Kishore AAG 3 --- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice And Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal --- Dated, the 8th July, 2008 In the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order of respondent no.3, Special Secretary, Secondary, Primary and Adult Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, declining recognition to the institution, the following order was passed on 4.11.2004 by this court: “The order impugned per se does not appear to be in accordance with the direction of this Court, as referred to above. While disposing of the representation of the petitioner – school, the authorities were required to assign sufficient reasons as to whether petitioner – school is similarly situated to 223 schools which have already been recognized and, as to whether the school in question would be governed for fulfilling requirements as per 1981 Rules. The order impugned appears to be 2 completely silent on these questions and it is not in much dispute that the school has some land and sufficient fund. The matter, in that view of the matter, requires fresh consideration by the State authorities. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this application is allowed. The order impugned as contained in Annexure -1 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to respondent no.3, Special Director (Sanskrit), Secondary, Primary and Adult Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna for fresh consideration of the matter in accordance with law in the light of the observations made and also in view of the recommendation made by the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, as referred to above. This exercise, however, must be completed by respondent no.3 within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.” 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the authorities have violated the aforesaid order by not granting recognition to the petitioner – school with effect from 1.1.1985 which was granted to the similarly situated 223 schools. 3. In response to this MJC show cause has been filed by the opposite parties. The crux of their show cause is that although the petitioner – school does not meet the requirement of Recognition Rules, 1993, yet recognition has been granted to the petitioner – school without any financial aid by the State government. The said order is said to have been passed on 5th January, 2006. 4. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 5th January, 2006 is in utter disregard and breach of the 3 order dated 4.11.2004. According to him, the authorities have been consistently and persistently seeking to overreach the process by not complying with the order. 5. It is true that in the order dated 4.11.2004, this court has at more than one place recorded a finding that the State – authorities have not applied their mind to the petitioner’s case for recognition. 6. It appears that this court held that the order declining recognition was per se bad in law and not in accordance with the direction of this court which was earlier made. However, in the entire order there is no finding, although it was contended by the counsel for the petitioner, that the school was governed by 1981 Rules. 7. The counsel for the petitioner heavily relied upon the following paragraph of the order: “From the materials on record, it appears that the school was established in the year, 1978 and it has sufficient infrastructure. The matter was examined by the Board and ultimately, it recommended the case of the petitioner – school for its recognition but ultimately, on one pretext or the other, prayer for recognition has been declined. From Annexure -1, the order impugned, it is evident that the school has 5 kathas 16 dhurs of land but land measuring of 3 kathas 16 dhurs was registered in the name of the Governor and it has security amount of Rs. 2500 instead of Rs.3000/-. It further appears that at the time of establishment of the petitioner – school, the same was governed by 1981 Rules and according to 4 1981 Rules, the petitioner – school fulfilled all the requirements and accordingly, the school in question and several other - schools were approved by the Sanskrit University and the matter was ultimately referred to the State Government where 223 schools were recognized barring the petitioner – school.” 8. The aforesaid paragraph does not record the finding of the court but is rather the contention of the petitioner which is clear from the paragraph preceding the aforesaid para and paragraph following the aforesaid para. The finding of the court has already been re-produced by us. 9. If the order dated 5th January, 2006, whereby the authorities held that the conditions prescribed in 1993 Rules were not met by the petitioner – school and granted the petitioner – school recognition without financial aid or that the consideration of the matter by the authorities under Rules 1993 was bad in law, then the petitioner ought to challenge the order dated 5th January, 2006 in appropriate proceedings. The order dated 5th January, 2006 cannot be assailed in a contempt proceeding. We are satisfied that nothing leaves to be done in this contempt petition. 10. MJC is , accordingly, disposed of. However, this will not preclude the petitioner to put in issue the legality and correctness of the decision dated 5th January, 2006 on all 5 available grounds in appropriate proceedings. R.M. Lodha, CJ. Kishore K. Mandal, J. Neyaz/