Writ jurisdiction is discretionary and must exclude claims born from fraud; necessary parties must be included for maintainability.

JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA)

Date : 10-12-2025

Both the appeals arise from the same order, so both the appeals will be heard together and a common order/judgment will be passed for the same.

2. Heard Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava, learned senior counsel for the appellant in LPA No. 645 of 2025 and Mr. P.K. Shahi, learned Advocate General for the appellants in LPA No. 647 of 2025 and Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 10 in LPA No. 645 of 2025 and Respondent No. 2 in LPA No. 647 of 2025.

I.A No. 01 of 2025 (L.P.A. No. 645 of 2025)

3. The present interlocutory application has been filed under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure , seeking leave of this Court to file the present memo of appeal.

4. For the reasons stated in the interlocutory application, I.A. No. 01 of 2025 is allowed.

L.P.A No. 645 of 2025

5. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant assailing the interim order dated 19.06.2025 passed in CWJC No. 3502 of 2025 whereby the Hon’ble Single Judge has directed the Respondent No. 8 (The District Programme Officer- cum-Member Secretary, Approval Committee, Patna) to unseal the school premises on or before 25.06.2025 without considering the core issue of fraud, forgery and lack of maintainability of the writ petition.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant (Smt. Nilam Singh) is owner of the premises/building whose forged signature formed the basis of the alleged lease deed and she was not made party in the writ proceeding. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition was not maintainable. He further submits that the respondent no. 10/writ petitioner has challenged the cancellation of the recognition which itself was based on the finding of forgery of the very lease deed said to be executed with the appellant. He further submits that the entire proceeding is a clear violation of principle of natural justice, rendering the entire proceeding defective due to which the appellant has been compelled to file the present appeal.

7. The respondent no. 10/writ petitioner claims to be operating the school under the name of “St. Paul International School” to be run by a society registered under the Societies Registration Act , 1960, situated at Kacchi Talab, Gardanibagh, Patna. According to the averments made in the writ petition, the school is being run in a rented premises belonging to the appellant who happens to be the wife of Shri Amarendra Bhushan Singh who has been made Respondent No. 10 in the writ petition.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that after the enforcement of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act , 2009 (hereinafter referred to as ‘R.T.E Act’) which came into effect on 01.04.2010, all existing schools were required to obtain recognition/approval from the competent authority. The State Government of Bihar accordingly framed rules prescribed for necessary conditions and documents which are sought for such recognition. The respondent no. 10/writ petitioner applied for recognition on the basis of its claim that he was running the said school in the appellant’s premises. In support of his claim, it has been submitted that the alleged lease deed is said to have been executed between the Director, Mr. Danish Abedin and the appellant (Annexure-1 of the writ petition). Learned counsel for the appellant submits that from perusal of the Annexure-1 of the