Patna High CourtL.P.A/1672/2013dismissed

Taque Ahmad v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2017-03-27Mr. Justice Sudhir Singh,The Chief Justice2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.1672 of 2013 IN Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 17889 of 2011 =========================================================== Taque Ahmad S/O Sami Ahmad, Resident Of Village- Bharokhar, P.S- Samastipur, P.O- Tajpur, Distt- Samastipur.

.... .... Appellant/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar, through the Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Bihar, Patna.

2. The Secretary, Department of Education, Bihar, Patna.

3. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Bihar, Patna.

4. The Vice-Chancellor, Baba Saheb Bhim Rao Ambedkar University, Muzaffarpur.

5. The Registrar, Baba Saheb Bhim Rao Ambedkar University, Muzaffarpur.

6. The Inspector, the Baba Saheb Bhim Rao Ambedkar University, Muzaffarpur.

7. The Managing Committee, Through The Sub- Divisional Officer, Battia SadarCum- Secretary, Maheshwar Nath Mahamaya Mahila, Bettiah, (West Champaran)

8. The Principal of Maheshwar Nath Mahamaya Mahila Mahavidyalay, Bettiah (West Champaran)

9. Mahamaya Verma, Funder of Superior Donor of Maheshwar Nath Mahamaya Mahila Mahavidyalay, Bettiah, West Champaran. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant : None For Respondent Nos.4, 5, 6 : Mr. Dhruba Mukherjee, Sr. Advocate Mr. Ganesh Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. S. Raxa Ahmad, AAG-5 Mr. Vishwambhar Pd., AC to AAG-5 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date: 27-03-2017 None is present for the appellant. None was present for the appellant on the last date also.

We have perused the record and considered the

Patna High Court LPA No.1672 of 2013 dt.27-03-2017 2/2 submissions made by learned counsel for the respondents. A writ petition filed against a private educational Institute was dismissed on account of the fact that the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution is not available against the private Institute and granting liberty to the petitioner to take recourse of remedy available under the common law the petition has been dismissed.

In doing so, the learned Writ Court has not committed any error warranting re-consideration. The appeal stands dismissed. (Rajendra Menon, CJ) (Sudhir Singh, J) Narendra/- AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R.

CAV DATE N.A.

Uploading Date 01.04.2017 Transmission Date