IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.908 of 2007 THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF MADARSA ISLAHIA, KHAGRA BILAITIBARI, TOWN, POLICE STATION AND DISTRICT KISHANGANJ THROUGH ITS SECRETARY MOFIZUDDIN ALIAS MD. MOFIZUDDIN. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE BIHAR STATE MADARSA EDUCATION BOARD, VIDYAPATI MARG, PATNA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE CHAIRMAN, BIHAR STATE MADARSA EDUCATION, BOARD, VIDYAPATI MARG, PATNA-1. 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KISHANGANJ. 5. THE OFFICER IN CHARGE DISTRICT PUBLIC COMPLAINT CELL, KISHANGANJ. 6. THE DEPUTY ELECTION OFFICER, KISHANGANJ. 7. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION CUM SUBDIVISIONAL EDUCATION, OFFICER, KISHANGANJ. 8. IZHAR ALI SON OF NAME NOT KNOWN, RESDIENT OF MOHALLA KHAGRA, BILAITIBARI, TOWN, POLICE STATION AND DISTRICT KISHANGANJ. For the petitioner : Mr. N. Hoda, Advocate. For the Board : Mr. Rashid Alam, Advocate. For the State : AC to SC-V. ----------- 04. 21.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and the counsel for the Bihar State Madarsa Education Board(hereinafter referred to as the Madarsa Board). None appears for respondent no.8, although Vakalatnama has been filed on behalf of respondent no.8 through Sri Radha Mohan Singh, Advocate. 2. The Managing Committee of Madarsa Islahia Khagra Bilaitibari(hereinafter referred to as the Madarsa) questioned the order of the District Magistrate, Kishanganj contained in letter nos.384, 385 dated 19.12.2006, Annexures-8, 9, whereunder the District Magistrate dissolved the Managing Committee 2 of the Madarsa on the ground that the District Magistrate had no such jurisdiction to dissolve the Madarsa. This Court appreciating such submission under orders dated 7.3.2007 issued notice to respondent no.8, at whose instance the aforesaid two orders bearing letter nos.384, 385 dated 19.12.2006, Annexures-8, 9 were passed by the District Magistrate, Kishanganj as also stayed the operation of the aforesaid two orders. After grant of stay in the matter of dissolution of the petitioner Managing Committee the Madarsa Board has granted its approval to the petitioner Managing Committee under office order bearing Memo No.3681-85 dated 12.09.2007 which has been placed on record by filing supplementary affidavit, copy whereof was served on the counsel for the Madarsa Board as far back on 22.11.2007. It is submitted with reference to the office order dated 12.09.2007 that this Court after quashing the orders dated 19.12.2006, Annexures-8, 9 may permit the petitioner Managing Committee to continue and manage the affairs of the Madarsa. 3. Aforesaid submission is being opposed by the counsel for the Madarsa Board. He states that he 3 has no objection to this Court quashing the order dated 19.12.2006, as the same is without jurisdiction but petitioner Managing Committee may not be allowed to manage the affairs of the Madarsa as after grant of approval to the petitioner Managing Committee under office order dated 12.09.2007 the members of the public intervened in the matter and not only submitted complaints about the petitioner Managing Committee but also dissolved the same and constituted another Managing Committee. Information to the aforesaid effect was also given to the Board, whereafter matter was referred for enquiry by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Purnia who submitted report and in the light of the report action is being finalized. 4. Aforesaid submission of the counsel for the Madarsa Board is being refuted by the counsel for the petitioner stating that the submissions made and noted above by the counsel for the Madarsa Board is wholly incorrect as petitioner Managing Committee is functioning and managing the affairs of the Madarsa till date. 5. In view of the rival submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and the Madarsa Board, 4 while setting aside the orders contained in letter nos.384, 385 dated 19.12.2006, Annexures-8, 9 I direct the Secretary, Madarsa Board to issue notice to the petitioner Managing Committee before according approval to the another Managing Committee of Madarsa and pass orders in accordance with law after hearing the necessary parties as early as possible, in any case within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 6. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Rajesh/ ( V. N. Sinha, J.)