IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16472 of 2009 1. SIKANDER YADAV S/O LATE BASUDEO YADAV VILL- MAHUA (PACHIM TOLA), P.O. ARRAH, P.S. GHAILDHA, DISTT. MADHEPURA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE MADHEPURA 3. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER MADHEPURA 4. D.C.L.R. MADHEPURA 5. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER HAILDHA (MADHEPURA) 6. REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION SAHARSA 7. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OFFICER MADHEPURA 8. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER MADHEPURA 9. BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER GHAILDHA (MADHEPURA) ----------- 2. 12.1.2010 The controversy in this case relates to location of a school. Whether it should be located at the earlier premises alleged to have been chosen as claimed by the petitioner or whether it should be located at the subsequent place alleged to have been found more suitable after enquiry. Learned counsel for the petitioner urges that whether it be the earlier location or the new location both do not have a permanent establishment. The establishment of a primary school including its construction is regulated by the Bihar Primary School Siksha Samiti, 2007. Nothing has been urged before this Court from the aforesaid rules to demonstrate any arbitrariness or illegality to warrant interference by the writ Court in such matters. Mounding his submission during the course of argument, the petitioner now urges that he proposes to approach the District Magistrate for appropriate decision in the 2 matter in terms of the 2007 rules. If the petitioner files such representation, let the District Magistrate consider the same, when he shall consider the earlier location of the school, the subsequent report called for with which the petitioner is aggrieved, both in context of the Rules, 2007, regulating establishment of primary school and dispose it by a reasoned and speaking order within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)