The delay by the state in passing an order for permanent recognition does not fault the institution for admitting students based on provisional recognition.

The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 18.08.2007 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 10725 of 2001.

2. The writ petition was filed by the respondent-institution aggrieved by inaction of the State in refusing to grant recognition with retrospective effect. The matter has been contested before the learned Single Judge and it has been observed by the learned Single Judge in the judgment that the respondent-institution was granted provisional recognition for the Sessions 1990-91 on the condition that the institution has to acquire 2.50 acres of land. Accordingly, the respondent-institution has informed the State Government about acquisition of the land, but however, the matter was kept pending for three years by the State without passing any order. Meanwhile, on 19.09.1991, the Magadh University recommended for grant of affiliation to the said institution for the said course for the five years period, i.e. 1988-89 to 1993-94.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has also submitted that there is no dispute that the institution has been granted provisional recognition for the period 1988-89 to 1993-94 but however it has been contended that the institution went on admitting the students, even though recognition was granted only up to 1994 as it cannot be said that the recognition was granted with retrospective effect. The learned counsel for the State has fairly submitted before us as also before the learned Single Judge that there was delay of three years on the part of the State to pass order for permanent recognition but for that the institution cannot take advantage by admitting the students.

4. The learned Single Judge having gone into the merits of the case has allowed the writ petition on the ground that even though condition imposed by the Government was complied by the respondent-institution and informed about the same vide letter dated 6.12.1991 (Annexure-5), there was no action forth coming from the State for the period of three years and accordingly the learned Single Judge relying upon the judgment of the High Court of Bombay in the case of “All India Groundnut Syndicate Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax” reported in AIR 1954 Bombay 232 has held that as the matter for recognition was pending with the State without any occasion for the period of three years, the institution cannot be said to be committed any fault as he has already complied the condition imposed upon him by the Government.

5. Learned counsel for the State has argued before us that even though recognition was granted to the institution for the Sessions 1988-89 and 1989-90 but it will not mean that the said recognition was with retrospective effect. However, from perusal of the judgment of learned Single Judge it appears that the recognition was granted to the institution up to Sessions 1993-94 and the matter was kept pending by the State for three years without any communication to the respondent-institution and it is an admitted fact that provisional recognition was granted to the respondent-institution and basing on such recognition the students are being admitted by the institution.

6. Under the above circumstances, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge.

7. Accordingly this L.P.A. stands dismissed.