Patna High CourtCWJC/13054/2016dismissed

Hazrat Ali v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2017-04-13Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13054 of 2016 ====================================================== Hazrat Ali Son of Abdul Qaiyum resident of Village- Imli Tola, P.S.- Mansahi, District- Katihar, the Secretary of the Madarsa Matlaul Uloom at Imli Tola, P.S.- Mansahi, District- Katihar.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

2. That Special Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

3. The District Education Officer, Katihar.

4. The Bihar State Madarsa Education Board, Vidyapati Marg, Patna through its Secretary.

5. The Chairman, Bihar State Madarsa Education Board, Vidyapati Marg, Patna.

6. The Secretary, Bihar State Madarsa Education Board, Vidyapati Marg, Patna.

7. Md. Shamsul Haque Son of Sikandar Ali resident of Village- Imli Tola, P.S.- Mansahi, District- Katihar.

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Md. Musowir For the State : Mr. Madhav Pd. Yadav- Gp23 Ms. Meera Singh, AC to GP-23 For the Madarsa Board : Mr. Md. Rashid Alam, Adv. For Respondent No. 7 : Mr. S.A. Nasarwarsi, Adv. Mr. Brijnandan Prasad, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 13-04-2017 From plain reading of record, it seems that there is dispute between Madarsa, being run by the petitioner, and one, being run by respondent no. 7. The petitioner says that the Madarsa, being run by him, is the genuine Madarsa and is entitled for government aid, which is wrongly being given to the Madarsa, being run by respondent no. 7.

Patna High Court CWJC No.13054 of 2016 (4) dt.13-04-2017 2/2 There are disputed questions of facts, which cannot be adjudicated in writ proceeding. Such questions can be raised only in appropriately framed suit in the court of competent jurisdiction. This application is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.) Rakhi U