← Library
Calcutta High CourtWPA/26849/2025disposed

Chakla Laxmipur Junior Madrasah And ANR. v. The State Of West Bengal And ORS.

2026-02-04Hon'Ble Justice Bivas Pattanayak4 pages

04.02.2026 Sl. No.28(DL) Ct. No.14 srm

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE W.P.A. No. 26849 of 2025 Chakla Laxmipur Junior Madrasah & Anr.

Versus

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Md. Habibur Rahaman ...for the Petitioners.

Mr. Nadeem Sulaiman, Mr. Mijanul Kabir ...for the Madrasah Board.

Mr. Wasim Ahmed, Md. Mokaram Hossain ...for the State.

Md. Nauroz Rahber, Ms. Jenifar Jinnu, Mr. Meraj Alam ...for the Respondent Nos.5 & 6.

1.

Affidavit-of-service filed on behalf of the petitioners is taken on record.

2.

By the present writ petition, the petitioners seek for consideration of the representation of the petitioner No.2 dated 20th February, 2024 by the appropriate authority. 3.

The petitioners contend that the petitioner No.1 Chakla Laxmipur Junior Madrasah, situated at Village-Chakla, Post Office-Kapasia, Police Station-Itahar, District-Uttar Dinajpur, has been established in the year 1999 as a co-education institution for providing education to minority muslim community. The petitioner No.2, Khalilur Rahama is the Secretary of the said Madrasah.

The said Madrasah having its own land, buildings, adequate infrastructure and bank account as well as seven teaching and two non-teaching staff with adequate number of students, through petitioner no.2 on 8th March, 2013 applied in prescribed format with all supporting documents before the Director of Madrasah Education, West Bengal for grant of recognition of the said Junior Madrasah. Subsequently, petitioner no.2 came to learn that the private respondent Nos.5 and 6 in connivance with some official staff of the Department got inspection of the said Madrasah claiming themselves to be the Secretary and Headmaster of the said Madrasah. The private respondents also changed the names of the teaching and non-teaching staff in the inspecting report submitted before the Director of Madrasah Education, West Bengal.

After knowing such fact, the petitioner no.2 on 20th February, 2024 made a representation before the Director of Madrasah Education, West Bengal stating of such malpractice committed by the respondent Nos.5 and 6 and prayed for his intervention. Since no steps have been taken, hence this writ petition.

4.

Md. Habibur Rahman, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the matter be relegated to the appropriate authority for consideration of the representation of the petitioner No.2.

5.

Mr. Nadeem Sulaiman, learned Advocate for the Madrasah Board submits that the recognition has been

accorded to the said Madrasah, on the basis of inspection conducted by the concerned authority. The petitioners without producing any scrap of document have alleged of connivance which is not at all sustainable.

6.

Md. Nauroz Rahber, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos.5 and 6 submits that there are no such complaints with regard to any connivance with the officials for getting the recognition of the Madrasah. He seeks for dismissal of the writ petition.

7.

Upon going through the contents of the writ petition, it is found that the petitioners have alleged of connivance and illegal activities of the private respondents with some official staff of the Department and also of changing the names of the teaching and non-teaching staff. However, there are no such documents to demonstrate and suffice such contention.

8.

In light of the above, the writ petition falls short of merit.

9.

Accordingly, the writ petition being WPA 26849 of 2025 stands dismissed.

10. Since no affidavits have been called for, the allegation made in the writ petition is deemed to be not admitted,

11. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

12. All connected applications, if any, stand disposed of.

13. There shall be no order as to costs.

14. All concerned parties shall act in terms of the copy of the order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

15. Urgent Photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties on compliance of all necessary legal formalities.

(Bivas Pattanayak, J.)