IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.838 of 2008 HARIHAR PRASAD SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2/ 03/12/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in cancelling the recognition of the Kanishk Teachers Training College, Digha at Patna with effect from session-1989-1990 in pursuance of the order dated 2.6.1999. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the institution was granted recognition by the State Government with effect from the session-1989-1990 on 6.11.1996. Subsequently, the Magadh University granted affiliation for the sessions-1992-1993 to 1995- 1996 for the B.Ed. course. The petitioner was a student for the session-1994-1995, appeared at the final B.Ed. examination in 1998 and results declared on 7.2.1999. Learned counsel from the impugned order dated 2.6.1999 submits that the State authorities obviously granted recognition on 6.11.1996 satisfied that the institution fulfilled the conditions of eligibility. The impugned order dated 2.6.1999 records of alleged failure of the institution to maintain the standards and 2 thus the lack of justification to continue the recognition. It was not a case of retrospective cancellation of the recognition obtained by fraud or misrepresentation. On facts also the impugned order is not retrospective in nature by its language. The cancellation is also long after the declaration of the result of the petitioner. It appears that the similar matters have been considered by this Court in C.W.J.C. No.15551/06 relying on certain earlier orders of this Court. The writ application is disposed in similar terms with direction to the respondent State authorities in light of the aforesaid discussion to pass a fresh reasoned and speaking order insofar as the petitioner is concerned, within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Since the matter relates to an institution and persons who have studied therein, quite obviously, the petitioner cannot be stated to be an isolated case. The respondents are directed to examine issues with regard to the institution in question and pass appropriate orders in light of the present discussion of a general nature dealing and considering that all who may or may not be affected by the impugned order dated 2.6.1999 to be clarificatory in nature. 3 Let mandamus be issued for the same. It shall be the duty of the respondents to prevent unnecessary litigation coming to this Court because of lack of clarity in their orders. The application stands disposed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)