Chintamani Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7602 of 2023 ====================================================== Chintamani Devi Wife of Sri Sitaram Sahu Resident of Village- Karahiya, P.S.- Kishanpur, District- Supaul.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

The Additional Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3.

The Special Secretary cum Appellate Authority, Education Department, Bihar, Patna.

4.

The Special Director, Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna. 5.

The Chairman, Bihar Sanskrit Siksha Board, Patna. 6.

The Secretary, Bihar Sanskrit Siksha Board, Patna. 7.

Smt. Asha Kiran Wife of Sri Bipin Kumar Resident of Village- Bishanpur, P.O- Basho, P.S.- Pipra District- Supaul.

8.

Sri Bhola Yadav S/o not known, Chairman of the Bihar Sanskrit Siksha Board, Patna.

9.

Sri. Rajesh Kumar S/o not known, Secretary of the Bihar Sanskrit Siksha Board, Patna.

... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Shree Kant Pandey, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Vivek Anand Amritesh, AC to SC-28 For the Board :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate Mr. S.S. Sundaram, Advocate For the Resp No. 7 :

Mr. Sushil Kumar Jha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 16-08-2023 At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this writ application has become infructuous as according to his own statement, the Managing Committee would complete its tenure on 24th August, 2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in such circumstance, he would not press this writ application.

2. Learned counsel for the Bihar Sanskrit Siksha

Patna High Court CWJC No.7602 of 2023(6) dt.16-08-2023 2/2 Board (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board'), however, submits that the Managing Committee of the petitioner was constituted on 20.12.2019, therefore, the statutory tenure of the Committee came to an end on 19.12.2022 i.e. after completion of three years. It is stated that the tenure of the Committee is to be counted from the date of constitution and not from the date of approval of the Committee by the Board.

3. Learned counsel for the Board, therefore, submits that during the period, the petitioner's committee remained working illegally, the Board does not recognize the said period and is contemplating taking appropriate decision with respect thereto.

4. From the aforementioned submissions, this Court finds that once learned counsel for the petitioner has decided not to press this writ application and it is being disposed of as having become infructuous, this Court need not delve upon what would be under contemplation by the Board. Such issues are not dealt with at this stage.

5. This writ application is being dismissed as having become infructuous.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) SUSHMA2/- U