IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 13030 of 2002 Birla Institute of Technology, Mesra, Ranchi through its Vice Chancellor, Dr S K Mukharjee, resident of B I T Campus, Mesra, P S – Sadar Ranchi, District – Ranchi - Petitioner Versus 1 The State of Bihar 2 Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna 3 Secretary, Department of Science and Technology, Government of Bihar, Patna 4 Commissioner –cum- Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Bihar, Patna 5 State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi (Jharkhand) 6 The Union of India through Home Ministry, New Delhi - Respondents *** For the petitioner : Mr Jitendra Singh, Sr Advocate with M/s Rajeev Kumar Singh, Tej Pratap Singh, Kamal Kishor Singh & Harsh Singh, Advocates For Union of India : Mr Sarvadeo Singh, CGC For State of Jharkhand: M/s Dhrub Mukherjee & Neeraj Kumar, Advocates For State of Bihar : Mr Gautam Bose, AAG 8 *** 35 28.02.2011 This case depicts an extremely sorry and regrettable state of affairs that prevail in this State. This State professes to have taken exceptional steps for furthering the cause of education but this case demonstrates a different ground reality. What is spoken is one thing but what is done is just the opposite. For almost a decade, the petitioner- Institution has virtually been begging for its rightful claim. What is more regrettable is that the claim is not in dispute by anyone. All contentions that have been raised in the present interlocutory application being I A No 1240 of 2011 were already considered and disposed of by this Court by order dated 27.01.2011 still the State of Bihar wants to prolong the agony 2 of the petitioner-Institution, not because the State of Bihar challenges the right of the petitioner-Institution to demand the said payment but because State of Bihar has accounts to settle with the State of Jharkhand. The fight between the two States has resulted in the petitioner-Institution being deprived of a substantial sum of money for over a decade. As the learned Senior Counsel for the State of Bihar insists upon instructions that this Court once again reconsiders the position though it is impermissible and it is not a case of procedural review but what is sought in a substantive review which does not lie still lest it be said that the Court was not being fair to the State, Court once again repatriates its earlier order dated 27.01.2011. As Section 51 (2) of the Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000 has once again been pressed into service, I deem it proper to refer once again Section 51 (2) of the Act : “51. Deposits, etc (1 … … … (2) The liability of the existing State of Bihar in respect of any charitable or other endowment shall, as from the appointed day, be the liability of the State in whose area the institution entitled to the benefit of the endowment is located or of the State to which the objects of the endowment under the terms thereof, are confined.” A reference to the said provision would show that the liability of the State, as contemplated under the aforesaid Section and provisions thereof, is in respect of “as from the appointed day”. Thus, the provision has prospective application. It does not speak of or it does not provide for apportionment of past liability. In the present case, the liability undisputedly is of a date prior to the date of reorganization of the State that is prior to 14.11.2000. It was, thus, a liability of the State of 3 Bihar. What would be the position after 14.11.2000 is not a question that arises for consideration in the present case. I, therefore, once again hold that the liability of the amount as quantified in the earlier order by this Court being Rs 4.72 crores, the liability remains that of the State of Bihar which even the State of Bihar does not challenge. State of Bihar is only trying to throw the burden on the State of Jharkhand. State of Bihar refers to purported Memorandum of Understanding entered into between the two States at the meeting dated 30.09.2001 which is appended to this interlocutory application. The State recordings are only Memorandum of Understanding as between the two States. It is well known that a Memorandum of Understanding is neither an agreement nor a contract which is an enforceable agreement in law. It may bind the conduct of the parties but surely in any view of the matter, it cannot bind the petitioner-Institution. The most regrettable part of this entire episode is that petitioner, being a premier educational-Institution, has effectively been deprived of over Rs 4 crores for almost a decade for no fault of its. In view of the aforesaid, I am left with no option now but to direct the State of Bihar once again to pay firstly Rs 2 crores as quantified by this Court in its earlier order which the State of Bihar had agreed in 2001 itself to pay to the petitioner-Institution within one month from today alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the time it was due till the time the payment is made. Institution cannot be made to suffer because of some misconceived predilections of the State of Bihar. So far as the second amount which has already been 4 quantified by this Court in the earlier order of Rs 4.7214 crores is concerned, State of Bihar still wants time to verify the same. Be that as it may, State of Bihar will take all steps to get the amount verified with cooperation from the petitioner-Institution within a period of one month from today and ensure that the payment thereof is made within one month thereof that is by the end of April, 2011. If that payment is not made full and complete by the end of April 2011, the same would be liable to be paid by the State of Bihar alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date it was originally due till the date of payment. All the amounts which are paid by the State of Bihar to the petitioner-Institution appertained to period upto 14.11.2000 still, if purporting to a Memorandum of Understanding or any interpretation to any statutory provision, the State of Bihar has any claim as against the State of Jharkhand, it would be open to the two States to sit together and resolve that dispute at the earliest preferably within three months from today but in no case that will absolve State of Bihar from discharging its liability to the petitioner-Institution. It is only expected that the two States would behave in a manner compatible to Article-14 of the Constitution and resolve the issue amongst themselves rather than waste their own time and time of this Court in such useless and meaningless litigation. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)