IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.506 of 2008 1. Jagdish Prasad Singh alias Jagdish Prasad son of late Ram Gulal Mahto, resident of village Gulalbagh, P.s. Barh, District Patna at present the Secretary of S.S.D. Mahila Mahavidyalaya (Inter) Gulalbagh, Barh, Patna. 2. Akjay Kumar Singh son of Sri Devendra Prasad Singh resident of Mohalla Golapati, Barh Bazar, P.S. Barh, District Patna, Prof.-in- charge of Sant Sandhya Das Mahila Mahavidyalaya (Inter) Barh Patna. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Bihar Intermediate Council Patna, through its Secretary, Budh Marg, Patna, now dead but its legal representative is Bihar School Examination Board (Senior Secondary) through its Secretary. 3. Secretary, Bihar Intermediate Council (Education) Council, Budh Marg, Patna now dead but represented by Bihar School Examination Board (Senior Secondary) School, Budh Marg, Bihar, Patna. 4. Chairman, Bihar Intermediate Education Council, now dead but represented by Bihar School Examination Board (Senior Secondary), Budh Marg, Bihar, Patna. ----------- For the Appellants :- M/S. Ashok Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate & Rabindra Prasad Singh. For the B.S.E.B. :- Syed Arshad Alam. For the State :- Mr. Arjun Prasad Singh, A.C. to S.C. II -------- 10 18/11/2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the Bihar School Examination Board (Senior Secondary). By an order dated 22.08.2003 Bihar Intermediate Education Council, Patna which has now been dissolved and succeeded by the Bihar School Examination - 2 - Board (Senior Secondary) cancelled/terminated recognition of Sant Sandhya Das Inter Mahila Mahavidyalaya, Barh, Patna. The appellants challenged that decision through a writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 11582 of 2003 but the same was dismissed by the judgment and order dated 20.04.2007. Against that order the appellants preferred L.P.A. No. 492 of 2007 which was sought to be withdrawn to enable the appellants to go in review and in view of such prayer, by an order dated 23.08.2007 that Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. Thereafter the appellants preferred Civil Review No. 185 of 2007 which has been dismissed in limine by the order under appeal dated 22.4.2008. According to learned counsel for the appellants there existed an error apparent on the face of the record requiring review and the order rejecting the review application is, therefore, erroneous in law and fit to be set aside. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, relevant Rule was brought to the notice of the writ Court which provides for issuance of a notice before taking a decision to deprive a College of its recognition but the writ Court wrongly held that such rule could not have any - 3 - application on the ground that the affiliation/recognition was conditional and had been extended from time to time and the termination of recognition was only because the conditions were not fulfilled. Although learned counsel for the appellants committed the same mistake before us also and referred the relevant rule as Rule 19 but on going through the relevant Rules which are titled as “Bihar Intermediate Education Council (Establishment of Colleges and Conduct of Examination) Rule, 1994” it is found that the concerned Rules are Rule 7(18) and 7(19). According to Rule 7(19) of the Rules the Council is required to issue a show cause notice to the College concerned before taking a decision for depriving the College of recognition. Materials on record including those in the counter affidavit show that, in fact, the College in question had been granted affiliation with Magadh University only for the year 1980-81. The writ petitioners/appellants have meticulously avoided to bring on record relevant document as to when and how they got permanent affiliation as claimed by them but from the other materials in the counter - 4 - affidavit it is clear that the College had been given a notice as far back as in the year 1991 (vide annexure-C) that two important conditions for recognition relating to requirement of land and reserve fund were not available with the College. Annexure-B also shows that earlier the affiliation had been extended from time to time under orders of the Government only till 1987-89. Annexure-C shows that three months’ time was granted to fulfill the conditions otherwise the recognition was to be cancelled. Further developments are not supported by any document but Annexure- C/1 appears to be a recent inspection report dated 21.1.2009 to show that the College in question still does not fulfill conditions relating to land and reserve fund besides some other conditions. In view of the facts apparent on record, we are of the view that the appellants had notice about deficiency of the College and on that ground there was a proposal to cancel the recognition. In that view of the matter, we find no good reason to interfere in the matter. This Letters Patent Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. However, if the appellants are interested in - 5 - running the College after making requisite improvements and after fulfilling required conditions, they may do so and thereafter they may inform the respondents about such developments and on such application the respondents will be obliged to hold inspection and if it is found that the College has now fulfilled the required conditions, the respondents will consider to grant recognition to the College in question in accordance with law. AMIN (Shiva Kirti Singh, ACJ) (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.)