Faiyaz Ahmad v. The State Of Bihar,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16092 of 2024 ====================================================== Faiyaz Ahmad S/o Quamruzama R/o Village Bhawara Bhowara, P.S. Madhubani Town, District Madhubani, Bihar- 847212, Chairman Milli Trust, Gali No.01, Aaram Nagar, Qutub Road, Paharganj, New Delhi (Branch office at Stadium Road, Madhubani, Bihar).
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar, through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2.
The Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3.
The Additional Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4.
The Director (Higher Education), Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
5.
The Special Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. ... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner :
Mr. Amit Srivastava, Senior Advocate Mr. Jagnnath Singh, Advocate Mr. Girish Pandey, Advocate Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate Mr. Akash Ambuj, Advocate Mr. Padmanabh Kashyap, Advocate For the Respondents :
Mr. Kumar Mangalam, AC to SC-24 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 20-11-2025 Heard Mr. Amit Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Jagannath Singh, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Kumar Mangalam, learned Advocate for the State.
2. The petitioner, Chairman of the Milli Trust, has approached this Court by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court seeking a direction upon the respondent authorities to grant approval for establishing/running SHANZA University, Madhubani, being established by the Milli Trust under the Bihar Private Universities Act, 2013, for which the petitioner has
2/4 submitted all the required documents demanded by the respondents.
3. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner confining the submissions, apprised this Court that earlier the petitioner had approached the authorities concerned to grant approval for establishing/running the University and the petitioner was directed to present the power point presentation on 03.01.2024; however, as some shortcomings were found therein, he was directed to remove the same. Accordingly, a fresh power point presentation was done on 31.01.2024. This time also, the respondent authorities were not satisfied with the power point presentation and, thus, the petitioner along with others were directed to ensure their power point presentation on 21.09.2024 vide letter contained in Memo. No. 4126 dated 19.09.2024.
4. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, referring to the aforenoted letter, contended that the petitioner, who happens to be the Chairman of the Milli Trust, resides in New Delhi, and unluckily this letter has never been communicated and, thus, on the date fixed for power point presentation, he could not ensure his presence before the authorities, which led to non-consideration of his prayer for
3/4 approval for establishing/running a University. Learned Senior Advocate, thus, submitted that if the petitioner will be allowed one more chance to present his power point presentation, he would be able to satisfy the authorities, and the respondent authorities shall be at liberty to pass the appropriate order based upon the materials placed before the authorities concern through the power point presentation.
5. Learned Advocate for the State, referring to the counter affidavit, has submitted that the petitioner has been offered sufficient opportunity and he was directed to ensure his presence and present the power point presentation, but he did not turn up and as such the claim of the petitioner could not be considered.
6. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned Advocates for the respective parties and taking note of the materials available on record, in order to resolve the dispute, this Court directs the Director, Higher Education, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, to allow the petitioner to appear along with power point presentation and also afford the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing, if required, on any prescribed date and take appropriate decision in accordance with law.
4/4
7. It is expected that this exercise may be completed preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations and direction. (Harish Kumar, J) Pawan/- U