RAMJEE PRASAD GUPTA & Ors. v. THE BIHAR INTERMEDIATE EDU.COU

directed by this Court in the writ application filed in this Court. After the order of remand the Bihar Intermediate Education Council, Patna passed the impugned order contained in annexure-2 dated 10.5.2001. The relevant portion of the order is being quoted below:

Further it has also been reported the same college has been running in Katar/Jamuhar in Rohtas district which is 8 to 10 kilometers away from the Dehri-On-Sone, Rohtas before passing the order we are not going to the question of the location and existence of the college of Baba Ganinath College, Dehri-On-Sone, Rohtas as per the record it is clearly indicated that Baba Ganinath College has been originally established in Dehri-On-Sone and not in Katar/Jamuhar. But so far the legality as the in charge Principal is concerned, it is observed that since the Rameshwar Prasad has been appointed as Principal In- Charge of Baba Ganinath College, Dehri-On-Sone, Rohtas he ought to be recognized as the Principal of that college but after receiving a fresh resolution from the Governing Body of the concerned college.

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of Intermediate Council the petitioner seeks to quash the order and has prayed that this Court may decide the rights of the parties i.e. the petitioner vis a vis Rameshwar Prasad.

Before going any further, it would be relevant to state that the petitioner’s case is that the college was originally started at 3 Dehri-On-Sone. However, due to paucity of funds and because of high value of landed property was purchased at Katar. In the mean time, there appeared to be a dispute with one of the members of the Managing Committee who separately started a college in the same name i.e. Baba Ganinath Mahavidyalaya at Jamuhar in the district of Rohtas in a rented building. There is a dispute with respect to the fact as to whether there are two colleges by the same name running, one at Katar and the other at Jamuhar. The petitioners’ case is that the college is at Katar and the college is at Jamuhar is actually a separate entity whereas the case of the respondent no. 4 Sri Prasad is that both the colleges are one and the Managing Committee had appointed him as the Principal. Another relevant fact is that at present there is an order recognizing Baba Ganinath College, Dehri-On-Sone, Rohtas, again both the parties have conflicting claims, one that the recognition has been given to the college at Katar whereas respondents claim that there are two sections of the college one running at Katar and the other at Jamuhar which is run by Managing Committee who has appointed the respondent no.

4 as the Principal. In this background it may be stated that in fact there is no resolution or firm order till today regarding the fact as to which of the two managing committees is actually functioning and which of the two colleges is actually the college which had to be recognized by the erstwhile Bihar Intermediate Education Council, Patna. There are several documents produced by both the parties which include inspection reports of the colleges in question, the various orders passed 4 by the Intermediate Council and documents purportedly showing the existence of the colleges at Katar and Jamuhar. These documents have to be examined by a competent authority before any one can decide the issue that have been raised in this writ application. This Court however, cannot go into these disputed questions of fact under Article 226. Now coming back to the order impugned dated

10.5.2001 it would be apparent that the Intermediate Council has also left the question open with respect to the location of Baba Ganinath College. It has also left open the question as to who is the Principal of the said college and as further observed that the matter can only be determined after receiving a fresh resolution from the Governing Body of the concerned college. This decision at annexure-2 does not help the petitioner or the respondent and does not settle the dispute between the parties. In the mean time, it would be relevant to mention that the Bihar Intermediate Education Council Repeal Act, 2007 was promulgated by which the Bihar Intermediate Education Council Act has been repealed and as such today the Council is not a legal entity. Clause 7 of the Repeal Act has saved all acts and actions taken by the Council in exercise of the power under the Act. However, this does not help the petitioner in as much as the Court finds it difficult to sustain annexure-2 on the ground that the order has not decided the issue raised before it.

Now the question that arises is what would be the remedy available for the petitioners which could resolve the long standing dispute between them and bring matters to a rest. In this context I would like to record that the college and 5 Ramjee Prasad Gupta along with the Chairman and Secretary of the Managing Committee had filed Title Suit No. 130 of 1999 in the Court of Sub-judge I, Sasaram. They had also filed an injunction petition. However, before the case could be decided the Bihar Intermediate Education Council Repeal Act, 2007 was repealed. The suit was withdrawn because as per the Bihar Intermediate Council Act no suit would lie against the actions of the Council and also because of the fact that the college was de-recognised. However, this lis can only be resolved by the Civil Court if the disputes between the Managing Committees have to be put to rest or by the State Government in the matter recognition of the College.

In fact Mr. Lalit Kishore, appearing on behalf of the Bihar School Examination Board has submitted that the Board is only an examining body and therefore, it cannot interfere with the administration of the College or even take a decision with respect to the location of the College and as such according to him the parties have to approach either the State Government or the Civil Court. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that a large number of students are studying in the college and are suffering because of the fact that there is a dispute between the petitioner and the respondent no. 4 as it becomes a problem when the Principals have to submit the examination the authority taking +2/Intermediate Examination and every time one or the other party is authorized to collect the forms & fees the party aggrieved goes to Court. It would have been an idle situation if both the parties and the persons involved in this dispute would come together and decide amicably the 6 future of the college taking into account the fact that the main aim of the college is to impart education.

However, if the parties are unable to come to any amicable settlement it would be open to the parties or the person aggrieved to approach the appropriate authority i.e. the State Government or the Civil Court for resolving the matter. An objection has been raised that a second suit be barred in this matter. However, considering the fact that the Intermediate Council is no longer a legal entity which was empowered under the Act to decide the matter of recognition of the college taking into account its location and other conditions for establishing such a college there is no option for the petitioner but to move the Civil Court or the State Government to decide the issues in question. I accordingly dispose of this writ application with the observations aforesaid. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)