IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20795 of 2011 Managing Committee Of Madarsa Hamidia Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ---------------------------------- For the Petitioner: Mr.Rahmatullah, Advocate For State : Mr.Alokj Ranjan, AC to GP 17 For the Board : M/s Rashid Alam & Mahtab Alam, Advocates ------ 2. 19.12.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the appellate order dated 5.8.2011 passed by the Special Director (Secondary Education) Department of Human Resources setting aside the order dated 26.6.2007 of the Bihar State Madarsa Education Board holding the petitioner managing committee to be valid. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appellate order ignores the earlier order of this Court in CWJC No. 14483 of 2005. It was next submitted that the Special Director lacked the power to decide and the matter has been referred to Full Bench in CWJC no. 12775 of 2008. The matter may be posted along with the same or directed to be posted thereafter. Counsel for the State has opposed the application to submit that the petitioner by his conduct dos not deserve any indulgence in the discretionary writ jurisdiction of this Court. The appellate order adequately distinguishes the earlier order of this Court in CWJC No. 14483 of 2005 holding that the subject matter therein was another order of the Board dated 24.7.2004 and not the present order dated 26.6.2007. The appellate order contains adequate recitals of the repeated adjournments of the appellate proceeding to enable the petitioner to participate in the proceeding before the appellate court. 2 Counsel for the petitioner urged that in any event the written reply had been filed before the appellate forum. If the petitioner did not participate in the proceeding before the appellate forum notwithstanding notice to it as mentioned in the appellate order, a fact not denied in the pleadings of the writ application, the Court is not persuaded to exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction in its favour. He risked an exparte order in the hope that he shall either succeed before the appellate court and if he was unsuccessful he shall carry the litigation further on that ground. The Court is not persuaded to encourage such kind of litigation in exercise of it discretionary writ jurisdiction. The writ application is dismissed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)