Anil Singh v. The State Of Bihar Through Its Chief Secretary,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1502 of 2021 ====================================================== Anil Singh Son of Late Ram Lakhan Sharma, Resident of Village-Arpa, Gadh Par Road Ke Pass, Hanuman Mandir Ke Bagal Me, Police Station-Hilsa, District-Nalanda.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through its Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2.

The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3.

The Joint Secretary, Human Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

4.

The Additional Secretary, Human Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

5.

The Director, Secondary Education, Education Department, Bihar, Patna. 6.

The Director, Primary Education, Education Department, Bihar, Patna. 7.

The State Pariyojna Director, Bihar Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Patna. 8.

The State Programme Officer, Bihar Education Pariyojna Parishad, Patna. 9.

The District Magistrate, Nalanda.

10.

The Regional Education Deputy Director, Nalanda. 11.

The District Education Officer, Nalanda.

12.

The Deputy Development Commissioner, Nalanda. 13.

The District Programme Officer, Nalanda.

14.

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Hilsa, Nalanda.

15.

The Block Development Officer, Hilsa, Nalanda. 16.

The Block Education Officer, Hilsa, Nalanda.

17.

The Circle Officer, Hilsa, Nalanda.

18.

The Principal, Utkramit Middle School, Arpa, Hilsa, Nalanda. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Anil Kumar, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Madhaw Pd. Yadav, GP-23 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA ORAL ORDER 21-06-2022 The petitioner by way of this writ petition has prayed as under:- (I) For issuance of an appropriate writ commanding the

Patna High Court CWJC No.1502 of 2021(2) dt.21-06-2022 2/3 respondents to give the direction to allow the fund and further making the construction of building of Utkramit Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Arpa/Utkramit High School, Arpa under Hilsa Block, District Nalanda from Utkramit Madhya Vidyalaya, Arpa under Hilsa Block, District Nalanda and fund has not been given to the said school till date as to when fund has been given to Madhya Vidyalaya, Gaura in place of Utkramit Madhya Vidyalaya, Arpa. Admittedly, neither the petitioner is parent of any student nor he is a member of the managing committee of the concerned school i.e. respondent no.18, nor he can be said in any manner to be a trustee or donor of the said school. Grievance, if any, could have been raised by the concerned school or persons affected thereto. Petitioner is a stranger.

In view thereof, the petitioner cannot be said to have any locus standi to challenge the grant issued by the respondents for construction of building of the Madhya Vidyalaya, Gaura. It is also noticed that there is no lis between the concerned Madhya Vidyalaya, Gaura and Utkramit Madhya Vidyalaya, Arpa as both the schools are situated at different places.

Learned counsel submits that the concerned school was not included in the earmarked schools to whom inspection was conducted for grant of fund for construction of building, is found to be without basis as the earmarking of concerned schools physical area was to be assessed, does not have relation to the grant of the

Patna High Court CWJC No.1502 of 2021(2) dt.21-06-2022 3/3 funds for the building.

Releasing of grant for construction of building of a particular school is a purely an administrative action. No rights can be said to have been decided or taken away by such release of grant to a particular school nor it can be said to be any discrimination. Each school has its own claim for grant of release of funds for construction of building. If the concerned school namely respondent no.18 would have had any claim, they could have of course approached the authorities and if their claim would have been rejected or not accepted, grievance would be purely individual. The petitioner as a public person and resident of district Nalanda cannot be said to be having any claim on such funds. In view thereof, the writ petition is found to be wholly misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. (Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J) amit/- Item no.38 U