IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 14935 of 2009 1. THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF MADRASA DARUL HODA AT SIKRONA, P.O.- JHAUWA, P.S.- KADWA, DISTT.- KATIHAR THROUGH ITS SECRETARY DR. ALI S/O LATE RAYAZUDDIN VILL.- SIKRONA, P.S.- KADWA, DISTT.- KATIHAR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE BIHAR STATE MADRASA EDUCATION BOARD, null PATNA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, AT 5 VIDYAPATI MARG, P.S.- KOTWALI, DISTT.- PATNA 3. THE CHAIRMAN null BIHAR STATE MADRASA EDUCATION BOARD, PATNA, AT 5 VIDYAPATI MARG, P.S.- KOTWALI, DISTT.- PATNA 4. THE SECRETARY null BIHAR STATE MADRASA EDUCATION BOARD, PATNA, AT 5 VIDYAPATI MARG, P.S.- KOTWALI, DISTT.- PATNA 5. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER KATIHAR, DISTT.- KATIHAR 6. ABDUL QAIYUM S/O NOT KNOWN VILL.- SIKRONA, P.S.- KADWA, DISTT.- KATIHAR, SUSPENDED HEAD MOULVI OF THE MADRASA DARUL HODA SIKRONA, P.S.- KADWA, DISTT.- KATIHAR *** For the petitioner : M/s D K Sinha, Sr Advocate & Md Anis Akhtar, Arif Siddiqui, Advocates For the Madrasa Board : Mr Md Rashid Alam, Advocate For the intervener respondent : M/s R B Mahto, Sr Advocate & Nasrul Hoda Khan, Najmul Hoda, Advocate For the S t a t e : M/s Anil Kumar Sinha & Braj Kishore Singh, AC to SC 12 *** 3 18.03.2010 The petitioner-Managing Committee claims to be the Managing Committee of Madrasa Darul Hoda at Sikrona in the district of Katihar. It challenges the order issued by the Bihar State Madrasa Education Board dated 05.10.2009 (Annexure-4) by which it has been intimated that the approval accorded to the Managing Committee by the Board by its order dated 06.03.2009 2 has been withdrawn by the Board in its meeting dated 07.09.2009 and the Board has further resolved to order fresh enquiry in that regard. An intervention application has been filed on behalf of one Aijaz which has been allowed by this Court. He claims to be a member of another Managing Committee of the same Madrasa. The intervener-respondent states that without dissolving the earlier Managing Committee which continued to exist with approval of the Board, on misrepresentation of facts, the petitioner had obtained approval wrongly. Thus he, the intervener, opposes the writ petition supporting the action of the Board. The Board has also filed counter affidavit. As pleadings are complete, with consent of parties, the writ petition has been heard for its final disposal. On behalf of petitioner, Shri D K Sinha, learned Senior Counsel raises a short question. He submits that once approval was granted by the Board to the petitioner-Managing Committee, the same could not be withdrawn without hearing the petitioner. Thus, the impugned order, as contained in Annexure-4, is violative of basic principles of natural justice and must be quashed accordingly. On the other hand, Shri R B Mahto, learned Senior Counsel for the intervener-respondent submits that the approval was obtained by the petitioner-Managing Committee by committing fraud and deliberate misrepresentation. This having been brought to the notice of the Board, Board realised its mistake and, thus, was competent to withdraw its order and direct fresh 3 enquiry in the matter. He further states that the Managing Committee, of which intervener is a member, which is different from the Managing Committee of the petitioner, was duly approved in the past by the Board. Its term had not expired yet the petitioner-Managing Committee claimed an election and sought approval. It is further stated that the genuineness and bona fide of the intervener-respondent’s Managing Committee stands established by various recent litigations before this Court and these facts had been suppressed from the Board while seeking approval by the petitioner. The stand of the Board is that having granted approval to the petitioner-Managing Committee, they received complaints on which preliminary enquiries being made and the Board having satisfied that it had been misled, it recalled the approval so granted and has decided to get the matter reenquired into for the purposes of grant of approval to the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner’s case is to be considered again. It has not been cancelled for good. Petitioner can participate in the enquiry and establish its just and legal existence. Having considered the matter, I must say that the proposition as canvassed on behalf of petitioner is unexceptional. By grant of approval to the petitioner’s Managing Committee, a right had been created in it. That right ordinarily cannot be taken away without hearing the petitioner. Such an exercise of power would undoubtedly be in violation of principles of natural justice but as has been said in the past that principle of natural justice is 4 not an unruly horse. Its application depends on facts of the case. Here, intervener-respondent’s Managing Committee had earlier the approval of the Board. Nothing is shown that the approval stood withdrawn or cancelled or expired. Its legal existence was recognised in various litigations before this Court. Then suddenly a claim, put up before the Board by another group and accepted by the Board itself, raises many questions. Board has finally not cancelled the approval in the sense they have not declared the petitioner-Committee to be incompetent Committee. Board is yet to decide this issue upon a fresh enquiry where all can participate and have their say. Thus, whatever little prejudice that may be caused to the petitioner-Managing Committee would be far less if one says that after proper enquiry, a legitimate Managing Committee is put in place. Thus, for a larger public interest, Madrasas are not personal properties but public properties for public good, the interest of a smaller group must give way. As the Board has initiated enquiry into the whole matter, I direct that the Board must conclude this enquiry within a period of two months from today after hearing all the concerned parties and take a decision in the matter of grant of approval or non-grant thereof to the petitioner-Managing Committee. That would not end the responsibility of the Board which must then simultaneously pronounce as to which other Committee would be the lawful Committee to manage the Madrasa aforesaid, for there cannot be a vacuum in the Management of the Madrasa as the 5 Madrasa is established for public good and is provided funds by the State Government and the Madrasa Board. Till a final decision within the time specified, as above is taken, in the interregnum, the District Education Officer, Katihar would ensure that all funds that are received or receivable from the Madrasa Board or the State Government for payment of salaries and/or remuneration to the Head Moulvi and other Teachers and Staff who are already on the rolls of the Madrasa and do not face any disciplinary proceedings and had been paid in past as well to be paid so that no fund remains unutilised and lapses. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)