Ahsan Raza, v. State Of Bihar,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.23609 of 2019 ====================================================== Ahsan Raza, S/o Ahmad Raza, R/o- Mohalla Kashipur, Ward no. 11, Kashipur, District- Samastipur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

State of Bihar, through the Chief Secretary.

2.

Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3.

Central Bureau of Investigation, through the Director, New Delhi. 4.

C.B.I., through the S.P., Patna.

5.

Abdul Qayum Ansari, the Chairman of the Bihar State Madarsa Education Board, Patna.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sanjay Kumar, Adv.

Mr. Sarvdeo Singh, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Smt.Binita Singh (Sc28) For C.B.I. Mr. Bipin Kumar Sinha, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 29-11-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

Through the present P.I.L., the petitioner prays for issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction for C.B.I. enquiry against the private respondent no.5 for his illegal and arbitrary action and function as chairman who has made illegal appointment, who has made fraudulent withdrawal of money and has misused the fund of Board in his personal interest which has caused irreparable loss to the Bihar State Madarsa Education Board and due to

Patna High Court CWJC No.23609 of 2019(2) dt.29-11-2019 2/2 that the board is not doing justice for which it has been established and aim and object of the board has been frustrated due to action of such incompetent and undeserving person as also for a direction from restraining the function of those persons whom they have appointed ignoring all the norms and procedures and all those are family members and relatives of the Chairman which is bearing rupees 1, 82, 336 per month from the public exchequer and further stay the function of the private respondent as Chairman. After some time, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he shall be content if the petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the authorities concerned, including Vigilance Department, seeking appropriate action.

Needless to add that the authority concerned shall consider and decide the petitioner's request, of which we are hopeful, expeditiously and in accordance with law. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the liberty aforesaid.

(Sanjay Karol, CJ) ( Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) K.C.Jha/- U