Asha Kumari v. The State Of Bihar through Principal Secretary Deptt. Of Human

Examination Board is functioning. Firstly, the cancellation of the code of the school of the petitioner was made in an arbitrary manner without disclosing any specific reason, inasmuch as the relevant portion of the impugned order passed by the Secretary of Bihar School Examination Board reads as follows: “iz”uxr ekeyksa esa lfefr ds i=kad B.P. 14 fnukad 21- 3-2012 ds }kjk xfBr f=lnL;h; lfefr ds }kjk fd;s x;s fo|ky; ds LFkyh; ,oa vU;kU; fcUnqvksa ij fujh{k.kksijkUr izLrqr tk¡p izfrosnu ds vkyksd esa lE;d fopkjksijkUr mDr fo|ky; dks iwoZ esa vkoafVr fo|ky; dksM dks fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA** The author of the letter the Secretary of the Board, Mr. Lalan Jha, pursuant to an order of this Court is present in person and when he has been asked as to why no reason has been given in the impugned order he does not have any answer. This Court would again find that when the petitioner had approached for reconsideration of the case of the recognition of the school a letter Patna High Court CWJC No.22037 of 2012 (2) dt.11-01-2013 2 was written by the same person on 22.11.2012, the relevant portion whereof reads as follows: “lfefr }kjk iwoZ izsf’kr i= LFkk0 iz s0 fnukad 16-11-12 ds (cid:216)e esa lwfpr djuk gS] fd rstukjk;.k ;kno …dUgSyh‰ mPp fo|ky;] vjfj;k }kjk fo|ky; lEc)rk gsrq lEc)rk mifof/k &2011 esa fofgr izi=] laxr vfHkys[kksa dh lR;kfir Nk;k izfr ,oa fofgr lEc)rk “kqYd 75]000@& ;k 1]00]000@& ;k 1]50]000@& :0 lfgr fujh{k.k “kqYd 15]00@& :0 dk cSad M“k¶V lfpo] fcgkj fo|ky; ijh{kk lfefr] iVuk ds uke “kh/kz Hksth tk; rkfd vkids fo|ky; ds lEc)rk dh fn”kk esa vko”;d dkjZokbZ dh tk ldsA** It was this letter which has disturbed this Court, inasmuch as no prudent person could have understand as to how much amount was required to be deposited by the petitioner whether 75,000/- or 1,00,000/- or 1,50,000/-. Today the Secretary of the Board being author of the letter has appeared in person to explain that such amount was dependent on number of students and in fact he has produced his subsequent letter dated 10.1.2013 explaining the whole aspect relevant portion whereof reads as follows:- ^^iVuk] fnukad 10-1-2013 fo"k;& lEcn~/krk gsrw fofgr izi= ds lkFk fu/kkZfjr lEcn~/krk ’kqYd ,oa fujh{k.k ’kqYd tek djus ds laca/k esA egk’k;] mi;qZDr fo"k; ds laca/k esa dguk gS fd lfefr dh cSBd fnukad 24@10@2011 esa fy, x;s fu.kZ; ds rgr lfefr }kjk lekpkj i=ks a esa fnuakd 09@12@2011 dks izlkfjr ^^vko’;d lwpuk** ds vkyksd esa bl dk;kZy; ds i=kad LFkk0 izs0&994] fnukad 16@11@2012 ds }kjk fo|ky; fujh{k.k ’kwYd gsrw 15]000@& :i;s tek gsrw lwfpr fd;k x;k FkkA fo|ky; dh lacan~/krk gsrw lacan~/krk mifof/k&2011 ds izko/kkuks a Patna High Court CWJC No.22037 of 2012 (2) dt.11-01-2013 3 ds vkyksd esa fofgr izi= ,oa laxr vfHkys[kksa dh lR;kfir Nk;kizfr ds lkFk fofgr lacan~/krk ’kqYd tek djus ls lacaf/kr lfefr dh foKfIr la0&31@2011] nSfud lekpkj i=ksa esa fnukad 02@08@2011 dks izlkfjr gSA fofgr lacan~/krk ’kqYd ,oa fujh{k.k ’kqYd tek djus gsrw bl dk;kZy; ds i=kad LFkk0 izs0&997] fnukad 22@11@2012 }kjk vkidks lwfpr fd;k x;k FkkA bl i= es vafdr lacan~/krk ’kqYd 75]000@& ;k 1]00]000@& ;k 1]50]000@& dk rkRi;Z lacan~/krk mifof/k 2011 ds v/;k;&02] dafMdk&12 ls gS] tks foLr‘r :i esa bl izdkj gS%& Nk=ksa dk ukekadu izFke ls vkxs 500 rd 501&750 rd 751 ls mij ,deqLr ’kqYd dh jkf’k 75]000@& 1]00]000@& 1]50]000@& vr% fofgr izi= ,oa laxr vfHkys[k dh Nk;kizfr mijksDr ds vkyksd esa lacan~/krk ’kqYd rFkk fujh{k.k ’kqYd dk cSad Mz~kIV lfpo] fcgkj fo|ky; ijh{kk lfefr] iVuk ds uke ’kh?kz Hksth tk;] rkfd vkids fo|ky; ds lacan~/krk ds laca/kr esa vko’;d dkjZokbZ dh tk ldsA** On perusal of the letter dated 10.1.2013 now it becomes clear that the requisite amount of fee to be deposited was based on number of students in the school of the petitioner. This Court fails to understand as to why this draft was not prepared and sent by Mr. Lalan Jha, the Secretary to the Board earlier. The Secretary to the Board must keep in mind that he is a public authority and exercises only an administrative or quasi judicial power and therefore, his any action or order is to be backed by reasons. This Court hopes and believes that in future his all communication shall be meaningful. In view of the fact that the institution of the petitioner has Patna High Court CWJC No.22037 of 2012 (2) dt.11-01-2013 4 to make an application in terms of modified letter dated 10.1.2013 produced in Court today and a copy whereof has also been given to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this writ application is disposed of with a direction to the Secretary to the Board to also disclose the reasons for withdrawal of the code, so that before depositing fee the petitioner and other founder members of the school may decide as to whether they can fulfil such condition while putting the fees to be deposited by the institution at stake. Counsel for the Board having obtained instruction from Mr. Jha present in Court seeks and is allowed two weeks time to furnish reasons to the petitioner in support of Annexure 1, the order cancelling code of the school of the petitioner. Once such reasons are supplied to the petitioner, it will be open to her to deposit the fees for the purposed of grant of recognition to the school of the petitioner. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. The personal appearance of Mr. Lalan Jha, the Secretary to the Board, is dispensed with. He is, however, expected to be more cautious in exercise of his power and function in future. surendra/- (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)