IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10877 of 2007 1. RAVI NANDAN SAHAYA, son of late Krishnandan Sahaya, resident of village – Sahaya Bhawan, Shyamnandan Road, P.S. – Kazi Mohammadpur, District – Muzaffarpur, Managing Trustee Tirhut College of Physical Education, Trust cum Chairman, Tirhut College of Physical Education Society. 2. Chittranjan Sinha “Kanak” son of late R. R. Sinha, resident of Mohalla – Kanak Bhawan, Naya Tola, P.S. Kazi Mohammadpur, Distt. Muzaffarpur, Trustee Tirhut College of Physical Trust cum Secretary, Tirhut College of Physical Education Society. 3. Tirhut College of Physical Education Trust having its office at Sahaya Bhawan, Shyamnandan Road, P.S. Kazi Mohammadpur, Distt. Muzaffarpur through its Managing Trustee Ravinandan Sahaya. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. The Secretary, Youth and Culture, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 3. Director, Youth and Culture, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 4. The District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur cum Chairman, Governing Body of Tirhut College of Physical Education, District Magistrate Office Muzaffarpur. 5. Prof. Kamal Kumar Singh, Rameshwar Singh College, Muzaffarpur. 6. Deputy Director, Physical Education Muzaffarpur. 7. Smt. Kumkum Roy, Ex. Member of Parliament, Aam Gola, Muzaffarpur. 8. Deputy Director, Department of Youth and Culture, New Secretariat, Patna. 9. Secretary, District Kho-kho Sangh, Muzaffarpur. 10. Sri Prakash Prasad Gupta, Instructor Physical Education, L.S. College, Muzaffarpur. 11. Principal, Tirhut College of Physical Education, Krishna Nandan Sahaya Nagar, P.O. and P.S. Jhapaha, District – Muzaffarpur, Pin No.842314. 12. Teachers representative of the Teachers of Tirhut College of Physical Education. 13. Dr. Nissa Kaumudi, Teacher, Laxmi Chowk Brahmpura, Muzaffarpur. ----------- For the petitioners : Mr. Yugal Kishore Prasad, Sr. Advocate. For the State : Pankaj Kumar Sinha, AC to SC-3. ---------- 8. 05.07.2010 The question of law raised by the petitioners 2 and the objection raised about their status or bonafide is not tested by this Court keeping in mind the limited order which is going to be passed assuming that the present petitioners have some role to play in the running of the establishment of the institute in question. Their submission is that in absence of any affiliation by the State Government accorded to the institute, a governing body or adhoc body cannot be constituted by the State. The power for the State or the University as the case may be flows from section 60 of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976. The scope of the provision i.e. section 60 was interpreted in the case of The G. B. of Baba Bhut Nath College, Bagaha W. Champaran through its Secretary Daya Nand Dwivedi & ors v. The Bihar University, Muzaffarpur and others, BBCJ 1992, 597. The scope of section 60 has been discussed and decided in para 14 and 15 of the said decision, which are quoted below: “14. Section 60 of the Act does not speak of the fact that even if the application for affiliation is pending, the authority mentioned in the said clause has power to constitute a Governing Body or ad-hoc Committee. The wordings of section 60(1) of the Act are clear and ambiguous. The power to constitute a regular Committee is to be exercised if the College is admitted College. The Court cannot rewrite or recast the statutory provision for the obvious reason that it has no power to legislate. If I accept 3 the contention of the counsel for the respondent no.6 that even in cases where the application for affiliation is pending, the Vice Chancellor has power to constitute a Committee that would amount to making additions in the Act and Statutes which, in my opinion, is not permissible in law. In absence of any such provision, it is difficult to accept such contention of the learned counsel for the respondent and the same is fit to be rejected. 15. After considering the matter from different angles, I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that if the College is not affiliated one, the Vice Chancellor has no power to constitute regular or ad-hoc Committee, as the case may be, under section 60 of the Act. Pendency of application for affiliation will not confer power in the Vice Chancellor to constitute a regular or ad-hoc Committee. In view of the aforesaid conclusion the two notifications (Annexures 1 and 2) impugned in the present case are illegal and ultra vires the power of the Vice Chancellor and, accordingly, they are quashed.” From a reading of section 60 coupled with the said Division Bench decision the submission made at the bar by the learned senior counsel that the respondents had no authority to constitute an ad hoc committee in terms of annexure-2 dated 7.6.2003, seems to be correct in the undisputed position that there is no affiliation of this institute from the State or any concerned 4 University of the State. Annexure-2 dated 7.6.2003 stands quashed. An I.A. as well as a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Principal/Incharge of the college making allegation against the petitioners that dispute is being carried out by proxy only with the object of grabbing the property, land etc. for personal benefit of the petitioners. The institute has already fallen in bad times and if the petitioners are given free run who have failed to establish their bonafide then whatever little hope of redemption there may be , it will vanish and disappear in no time. ` The Stand of the State is that after coming of the new Act and establishment National Council for Teachers Education, the State has no role to play. However, there is some indication that for many a years this institute had been run on the basis of ad hoc committee constituted by the State, last of them being the year 1998 and subsequently by the new notification contained in annexure-2. The lack of bonafide of the petitioners is established by a glaring fact which has emerged during the course of submission. Vide order dated 25.3.2010 a direction was given to the petitioners to file application before National Council of Teachers Education for grant of recognition to the institute. Petitioners were directed to sign the papers and forward the same in this regard. Today a categorical statement has been 5 made at the bar that the petitioners have not done so. The fact stands that the very object and purpose of the stay granted by the Court earlier and the desire of the court to pull the institute back by keeping the scope of its revival has not been achieved. Obviously the interest lies else and the petitioners are not interested in revival of the institution. Even though annexure-2 stands quashed, the District Magistrate is directed to take over the property of the College in question which is Tirhut College of Physical Education till a declaration by a civil court of competent jurisdiction as to who are the competent persons or body to take care of the interest of the institute and run it from day to day or till such an adjudication or till the warring factions get together and obtain recognition from the National Council for Teachers Education as the case may be or which is earlier. The writ application stands allowed with the riders as indicated above. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J )