The definition of the expressions "proprietor" and "proprietary school" in the Bihar High Schools (Constitution, Powers and Functions of Managing Committee) Rules, 1964, is valid and does not violate the fundamental rights embodied in Article 31 of the Constitution.

Narasimham, J.

1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution by a person who claims to be the proprietor of a High School named after him at Jhandaha, challenging the validity of certain actions taken by the educational authorities under the provisions of the Bihar High Schools (Constitution, Powers and Functions of Managing Committee) Rules, 1964, (hereinafter referred to as "the rules") for constituting a Managing Committee for the said school.

2. The petitioners case is that he started the said School sometime in 1937, constructed the building on his own plot of land at a heavy cost and for some years met the entire expenses of running the school. This statement of fact is not wholly accepted by the respondents on whose behalf an affidavit was filed to show that the school was started by donations made by a large number of the public also, though the petitioners total contribution to the school was more than Rs. 10,000. It was also asserted in the counter-affidavit that the school was getting aid and grant from Government regularly. Government therefore treated the school as an aided school and wanted to constitute a Managing Committee for the School in accordance with the provisions of the rules, though in view of the large contribution made by the petitioner, Government recognized him as a life-member of the said school as defined in Clause (10) of Rule 2 of the Rules.

3. Most of the legal questions involved in this writ petition are already concluded by a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Sri Lal Mohan Sah V/s. State of Bihar, C. W. J. C. No. 618 of 1965, disposed of on 20-8-1965 (Pat), Mr. Basudeva Prasad for the petitioner, therefore, confined his argument to a very limited question, namely, whether by an artificial definition of the expressions "proprietor" and "proprietary school" in Clauses (12) and (13) of Rule 2 of the Rules the school could be taken away from the category of a proprietary school and treated as an ordinary aided school receiving grant and aid from the Government. For appreciating this point it will be useful to quote the definitions of the said two expressions:

"(12) proprietor means a private individual, a group of individuals, a trust, an association or a corporate body who have been bearing the entire financial responsibility, for the running of a proprietary school and have been declared as such by the Director."

"(13) proprietary school means a school the entire financial responsibility for the running of which is borne by a private individual, a group of private individuals, a trust, an association or a corporate body, and which is declared as such by the Director."

Mr. Basudeva Prasads contention is that even admitting that the petitioner was receiving grants and aid from the Government for the purpose of running the school, nevertheless the school must be held to be a proprietary school, of the petitioner and that his vested interest in the school cannot be taken away by a mere definition. He fairly conceded that the school will not come within the category of a proprietary school as defined in the rules inasmuch as at present the entire financial responsibility for running the school is not borne by him. The counter-affidavit of the department shows that when the petitioner asked the Subdivisional Educational Officer to treat the School as a proprietary school the latter enquired from the petitioner whether he was willing to undertake the entire expenses of running the institution, including recurring expenses, but the petitioner discreetly kept quiet and has not given any reply to that query.

4 There are obviously disputed questions of fact. The petitioners claim to have started the school entirely at his own expense and to have run it for several years without any help from any other source is not accepted by the respondents, according to whom a large number of the public also made donations for the school. But even if it be assumed for arguments sake th