IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8508 of 2010 1. KAUSHAL KUMAR S/O DR. HARISHCHANDRA GIRI CENTRE CO-ORDINATOR OF INSTITUTE OF ADVANCED STUDIES IN EDUCATION (DEEMED UNIVERSITY), GANDHI VIDYA MANDIR , SARDARSHAHAR, RAJASHTHAN, AT NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY(STUDY CENTRE ) GOLA ROAD, BAILEY ROAD, DANAPUR, PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR , THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY 2. THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR AT PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE PATNA ----------- 03. 18.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the Letter dated 19.4.2010 issued by the Director, Department of Science and Technology, Government of Bihar, directing the petitioner to stop distance education courses of Engineering and Technology of the Institute of Advance Studies In Education, Gandhi Vidya Mandir, Rajasthan, a Deemed University (Institute of Advance Study In Education University). It appears that certain complaints were made in the Janta Darbar of the Chief Minister that the petitioner was running unauthorized/unrecognized courses misleading students. Certain notices were issued to him. The Court has gone through those notices, but is not satisfied that they were fully of the nature germane to the issues as required. That fact is apparent from the conduct 2 of the respondents themselves in issuing the impugned show cause order dated 19.4.2010. If the respondents had actually issued a show cause notice in accordance with law and arrived at a conclusion after considering the cause shown, there was no occasion for them to issue a fresh show cause notice. If a show cause notice has been issued, unless and until, there is an application of mind to the cause shown, there can be no question of pre-judging the issues by directing any prohibitory or penal action pending consideration of the cause shown and final decision. Learned counsel for the petitioner from the impugned order submits that the I.A.S.C. University did not require A.I.C.T.E. approval for running the course of Engineering and Technology. Learned counsel for the State submits that in absence of A.I.C.T.E. approval the petitioner cannot be permitted to run the aforesaid course in any capacity or manner. The Court is satisfied from the impugned order dated 19.4.2010 that it is essentially a show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to explain why appropriate orders be not passed restraining it from running the aforesaid course in absence of necessary A.I.C.T.E. approval. If it is a show cause notice, the question of 3 directing the petitioner not to run the course, pending decision by the authorities amounts to pre-judging the issue rendering the impugned order a final order and not a show cause notice. The Court therefore directs that the impugned order dated 19.4.2010 be read simplicitor as a show cause notice. Any directions/observation contained therein restraining the petitioner from acting in any particular manner till an appropriate decision is not taken in the manner is held to be unsustainable and to that extent is expunged from the show cause notice. Let the petitioner file its response to the impugned order before the Director, Science and Technology, Department of Government of Bihar, within a maximum period of two weeks from today. If such response is not filed within two weeks, the writ petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. If the response is filed within the time indicated, let the Director grant personal hearing to the petitioner, considering all his contentions including documents that may be placed during the personal hearing and then pass a reasoned and speaking order within a maximum period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of such response by the petitioner. The writ application stand disposed with the 4 aforesaid direction. P.K ( Navin Sinha, J.)