Back
2017 Supreme(Pat) 772
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, J.
Managing Committee of Darul Uloom Kalimia Parasmani & Anr. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Department of Human Resources & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 16578 of 2015
Decided On : 28-04-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Atif Inam
For the Respondents: Smt. Nivedita Nirvikar
The Court emphasized the necessity of a detailed investigation into the recognition and affiliations of private Madarsas receiving grants-in-aid to prevent deceit and fraud in the utilization of public funds.
Headnote:
Madarsa - Dispute over Management - Bihar Lokayukta Act, 2011 - Section 3, Chapter VII, Chapter VIII, Chapter III, Chapter IV
Fact of the Case:
Dispute between two Managing Committees of different Madarsas over recognition and affiliation by the Bihar State Madarsa Education Board. The Board refused to accept examination fees and forms of students from one Madarsa due to the dispute.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the matter involved disputed facts and could have been held to be not maintainable, but due to the potential for manipulations and bunglings in the grant-in-aid scheme, the Court directed an in-depth investigation by the Institution of Lokayukta, Bihar, under the Bihar Lokayukta Act, 2011.
Issues: Dispute over recognition and affiliation of Madarsas, potential manipulations and bunglings in the grant-in-aid scheme, necessity of detailed investigation and enquiry into the affairs of the Board.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court directed the Institution of Lokayukta, Bihar, to conduct an in-depth investigation into the recognition and affiliations of private Madarsas receiving grants-in-aid, to ensure proper utilization of public funds and prevent deceit and fraud.
Final Decision: The Court disposed of the application, allowing the parties to approach a civil court for adjudication of their disputes over the genuine management of the Madarsa and entitlement to grants-in-aid.
The petitioner no. 1 claims to be the Managing Committee of Darul Uloom Kalimia Parasmani and petitioner no. 2, Secretary of the said Managing Committee, which is said to have established a Madarsa, known as “Madarsa Darul Oloom Kalimia, Parasmani”.
2. It seems that there is dispute between the said Managing Committee and respondent no. 5, which is the Managing Committee of Kalimia, Parasmani, Sarsi, Purnea, having Md. Islamuddin as its Secretary.
3. It is the claim of the petitioners, as is evident from the pleadings, that the petitioners Madarsa Kalimia has been affiliated by the Madarsa Board up to Wastania, though in the application for affiliation, name of the Madarsa was mentioned as “Darul Oloom Kalimia”. It is also their case that there was no other Madarsa in the said village Parasmani and, therefore, the petitioner did not lodge any objection over the name of the said Madarsa, at the time of grant of affiliation. The students of the said Madarsa are said to have appeared for Wastania examination, conducted by the Madarsa Board up to 2014.
4. The Bihar State Madarsa Education Board (hereinafter referred to as “the Board”) has come out with a notice, dated 23.09.2014, clause 7 of which mentions that all such Madarsas, in which two persons claim to be the Head Modarris, their examination forms shall not be accepted. This is the reason why the Board refused to accept the examination fees and forms of the students of the Madarsa, which is being claimed to be run by the Managing Committee of Darul Oloom Kalimia, Parasmani (petitioner). The Managing Committee of Kalimia, Parasmani (respondent no. 5) is also claiming to be the Committee running the same Madarsa and thus Head Modarris for the same Madarsa have been appointed by the two different Committees both claiming to be genuinely constituted to run the Madarsa. There are pleadings in the writ application on the point that the Madarsa, being run by the petitioner nos. 1 and 2, is the genuine Madarsa, established long back in the year 1987, after sufficient land was donated for the said purpose in the year 1981 itself; whereas respondent no. 5 cannot claim to be having enough land for lawfully running a Madarsa and for having affiliation from the Board.
5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Board, stating therein that the Madarsa run by respondent no. 5 has already been notified by the State Government and that the petitioners Madarsa does not have recognition by the Board.
6. It will be relevant to reproduce paragraph nos. 9, 10 and 11 of the counter affidavit:
“9. That it appears from the report, dated 03-11-2011, that the District Education Officer, Purnea, has found that there are two Madarsas are viable in the said village. But one Madarsa, named as Madarsa Kalimia Parasmani, is managed and governed by its Secretary, Md. Islamuddin, and another Madarsa, named as Madarsa Darul Uloom Kalimia, Parasmani, is managed and governed by its Secretary, Md. Morsil Alam. Both the Madarsa have its different sets of teaching staffs.
10. That, the deponent submits that the Board, therefore, issued notices to all the sets of claimants including the writ petitioner to produce its original papers. However, after considering the facts that the land as registered by the Madarsa of the respondent. Md. Islamuddin, is in the name and style of Madarsa Kalimia Parasmani under which name the Board has affiliated the Madarsa, prepared a check list, by the order, dated 14.01.2014, and forwarded the entire materials as per direction contained in Government notification, dated 15-02- 2011, to the Department of Education for final decision in the matter.
11. That it is submitted here that the State Government thereafter issued two notification whereby 609 Madarsa of the category of 2459 Madarsa have been recognized and granted financial assistance and the Madarsa, in question, has been placed in the said notification to be granted financial assistance. Therefore, the instant wri
