IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.205 of 2011 1. Madarsa Arshadul Olum , Kamalpur Khagota, P.O and PS- Babhani, District Purnea through its Secretary Md. Zabed Alam son of late Alimuddin, resident of village Kamalpur Khagota, P.O and P.S Babhani District Purnea 2. Md. Kalimuddin son of late Md.Khalil, working as Head Moulvi of Madarsa Madarsa Arshadul Olum , Kamalpur Khagota, P.O and PS- Babhani, District Purnea ....Appellants Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Department of Secondary, Primary and Adult Education, Government of Bihar, Patna 3. The Deputy Special Director (Secondary Education), Government of Bihar, Patna 4. The Deputy Director (Secondary Education), Government of Bihar, Patna 5. The Chairman, Bihar State Madarsa Education Board, Patna 6. The Secretary, Bihar State Madarsa Education Board, Patna ...Respondents ----------- For the Appellants: Mr. Anil Kumar Mukund, Advocate For the State: None -------- 5 06-05-2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the order under appeal. From annexure-1, it is clear that in respect of a large number of Madarsas numbering 2906 which were granted recognition in the year 1990, the government made it clear that it shall not bear any financial burden and in future appropriate decision may be taken for granting financial aid depending upon availability of funds. That decision is in consonance with the policy decision of the government taken in 1982 contained in annexure-5. The writ court has dismissed the writ petition 2 preferred by the appellants after noticing that it was 3rd attempt for getting relief of financial assistance for the Madarsa in question. There is no policy decision of the State to create any right in the appellants/ writ petitioners to claim financial benefits or aid from the State. The only submission advanced is that a particular Madarsa at serial no. 1994 of the list of 2986 Madarsas granted recognition in 1990 is getting or has received financial aid from the State and hence, State must consider the case of appellants for granting financial aid otherwise, it shall be a case of discrimination vis a vis a particular Madarsa in the district of Katihar. No order granting financial aid to the other Madarsa at Katihar has been brought on record and if any special consideration has weighed with the authorities, we are not aware of such special consideration. So far as case of the appellants is concerned, they cannot be granted any relief in exercise of writ jurisdiction in the facts of the case. Unless, there be a policy decision of the State creating right in the case of Madarsa to which appellants belong, the court cannot 3 issue a writ of Mandamus. In case some institution has been granted some financial benefits against the policy decision, the appellants would be at liberty to bring the relevant facts to the notice of the concerned respondents who will examine and if it is found that the benefits given to the Madarsa at Katihar is against law or policy decision then after notice to that Madarsa action may be taken in accordance with law. In the present proceeding that Madarsa is not a party and hence, we are not issuing any positive direction in respect of that Madarsa. The appeal is found to be without merits. It is, accordingly, disposed of. BKS/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)