In Smt. Nilam Singh vs. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Bihar, Patna & Ors. (2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justices Sudhir Singh, Acting Chief Justice and Rajesh Kumar Verma delivered a 27-page long judgement dated December 10, 2025, wherein it concluded:"....we find absolutely no reason to uphold the order dated 19.06.2025 passed in CWJC No. 3502 of 2025 of the learned Single Judge and we allow both the Letters Patent Appeals i.e. LPA No. 645 of 2025 and LPA No. 647 of 2025 and set aside the impugned order dated 19.06.2025 passed in CWJC No. 3502 of 2025 and as a consequence, dismiss the writ petition i.e., CWJC No. 3502 of 2025. 26. It is made clear that the observations made and the findings given in this order shall not come in any way of the competent court while deciding the title suits, as referred above."
Justice Anil Kumar Sinha was the Single Judge whose order passed in St. Paul International School, Kacchi Talab, Gardanibagh, Patna through it's Director namely Danish Abdin vs. The State of Bihar through The Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Bihar (2025) has been set aside.
The other ten respondents were: Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Bihar, Patna, Director (Primary Education), Department of Education, Government of Bihar, Patna, Deputy Director (Primary Education), Department of Education, Government of Bihar, Patna, Divisional Commissioner, Patna, District Magistrate, Patna, District Education Officer, Patna, District Programme Officer-cum-Member Secretary, Approval Committee, Patna, Additional District Magistrate-cum-District Public Grievance Redressal Officer, Patna, St. Paul International School through its director namely Danish Abdin, Sarwar Abdin and Amrendra Bhushan Singh.
The LPA was filed by the appellant assailing the interim order dated June 19, 2025 passed in CWJC No. 3502 of 2025 whereby the Single Judge had directed the Respondent No. 8 (The District Programme Officercum-Member Secretary, Approval Committee, Patna) to unseal the school premises on or before June 25, 2025 without considering the core issue of fraud, forgery and lack of maintainability of the writ petition.
The counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant (Smt. Nilam Singh) is owner of the premises/building whose forged signature formed the basis of the alleged lease deed and she was not made party in the writ proceeding. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition was not maintainable. He also submitted that the respondent no. 10/writ petitioner has challenged the cancellation of the recognition which itself was based on the finding of forgery of the very lease deed said to be executed with the appellant. He further submits that the entire proceeding is a clear violation of principle of natural justice, rendering the entire proceeding defective due to which the appellant has been compelled to file the present appeal.
Amarendra Bhushan Singh, the respondent no. 10/writ petitioner claims to be operating the school under the name of “St. Paul International School” to be run by a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1960, situated at Kacchi Talab, Gardanibagh, Patna. According to the averments made in the writ petition, the school is being run in a rented premises belonging to the appellant who happens to be the wife of Shri Amarendra Bhushan Singh who has been made Respondent No. 10 in the writ petition.
The counsel for the appellant submits that after the enforcement of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (‘R.T.E Act’) which came into effect on April 1, 2010, all existing schools were required to obtain recognition/approval from the vompetent authority. The State Government of Bihar accordingly framed rules prescribed for necessary conditions and documents which are sought for such recognition. The respondent no. 10/writ petitioner applied for recognition on the basis of its claim that he was running the said school in the appellant’s premises. In support of his claim, it was submitted that the alleged lease deed was said to have been executed between the Director, Danish Abedin and the appellant of the writ petition.
The counsel for the appellant submitted that from perusal of the writ petition it becomes clear that although the lease purports to be of 14 years commencing from May 5, 2018, but the same was unregistered and does not bear the appellant’s signature on any of the pages except the last one which itself suggest that the lease document is forged. Relying on this forged lease document, the District Education Officer, Patna had granted recognition to the school in question.
Thr counsel for the appellant submitted that the entire case of the respondent no. 10/writ petitioner is based on a so called lease deed dated 05.05.2018, which was executed for 14 years between the appellant and the writ petitioner. He also submitted that in fact, the said lease deed was never executed between the parties and from perusal of the document to the writ petition showed that it was unregistered despite being sworn as a 14 years lease deed and it dif not contain the appellant’s signature on all pages.
Even the signature appearing on the last page is forged which became evident when it was compared with the appellant’s admitted signature on her Passport, PAN Card, bank documents and other official records. He further submitted that it appeared from the aforesaid that the lease deed of the writ petition is nothing but a forged and fabricated document created by the respondent no. 10/writ petitioner to falsely claim authority over the premises. He further submits that the said lease is unregistered and the law does not permit an unregistered lease deed for a tenure of 14 years to be used as a legal document. The appellant submitted a complaint before the respondent authority stating therein that the school was being run in an old and unsafe building of more than 80 years which makes it hazardous for young children. It was also brought to the notice of the authority that the respondent no. 10/writ petitioner was also conducting illegal coaching classes for senior students in the same premises. Acting upon the appellant’s complaint, the District Education Officer, Patna conducted a spot inspection and issued notice to the respondent no. 10/writ petitioner who falsely claim that the said school was functioning on a lease dated 05.05.2018 which is for 14 years.
Upon receipt of the reply submitted by the respondent no.10/writ petitioner, the District Education Officer, Patna has sought for appellant’s response and after affording due opportunity of hearing to both the sides, the District Education Officer, Patna conducted an enquiry through a 3 member committee, which found that the document on which the respondent no. 10/writ petitioner is relying is unregistered and unsigned on all pages and has contained a forged signature of the appellant on the last page. In the report submitted to the State Government, it is further stated that the petitioner had submitted an application for approval of the school under the R.T.E Act on e-samadhan portal.
The counsel for the appellant submitted that on the basis of these findings the State Government considered the entire materials and approved the proposal for cancellation of the school’s recognition and directed that no fresh admission be taken for the academic session 2025-26 and the existing students be shifted to a nearby recognized school. Accordingly, the District Programme Officer issued the order dated December 26, 2024. The respondent no. 10/writ petitioner thereafter, approached the Commissioner, Patna Division by filing an application under the Public Grievance Redressal Act but the public grievance authority declined to grant any relief in view of the order passed by the State Government. He further submits that despite the clear order of the State Government restraining fresh admission snd withdrawal of the school’s recognition, the respondent no.10/writ petitioner continued to run the school in complete defiance of the order of the State Government. When the District Education Officer inspected the premises, he found that the school is still functioning illegally and thereafter, submitted a report to the State Government upon which the directions were had already instituted a Title Suit No. 472 of 2024 and an employee of the school, namely, Smt. Bhavana Priya had also filed Title Suit No. 407 of 2024 both concerning the same school in question.
The counsel for the appellant submitted that the Respondent No. 10 in the writ petition who happened to be the husband of the appellant had stated before the writ Court that the respondent no. 10/writ petitioner operates another school, namely, Red Carpet where several irregularities had slso been committed and he has filed the I.A. No. 01 of 2025 in the writ proceeding seeking initiation of criminal proceeding under Section 379 of the B.N.S.S, 2023 against the respondent no. 10/writ petitioner for submitting a forged lease deed before the Court. He further submits that during pendency of the writ, the respondent no. 10/writ petitioner has filed an I.A. No. 02 of 2025, seeking direction to unseal the premises.
The Single Judge without examining any of the aspect as discussed above briefly including the finding of the 3 members committee's inquiry regarding forged and unregistered lease deed, was pleased to hold that there is no provision under the R.T.E Act for sealing the premises and accordingly, directed the respondent authority to unseal the same. He also submitted that from bare perusal of the record of CWJC No. 3502 of 2025, it appears that the Single Judge without allowing the I.A. No. 02 of 2025 has been pleased to direct the respondent authority to unseal the school. The order obtained on the basis of forged and fabricated document is a nullity in the eye of law and the Single Judge without appreciating the relevant facts and legal issues has directed the authority concerned to unseal the premises which suggests that by the interim order dated June 19, 2025, the writ petition was allowed by the Single Judge.
Arguing before the bench of Justice Sinha, Basant Choudhary, senior counsel appearing for the respondent no. 10-husband of the landlady, had submitted that license to run the School was given in the year 2004 for a limited period, however, the petitioner unauthorizedly continued to run the School from the premises and also created lease deed in the year 2018 for 14 years on the basis of forged and fabricated signature of the land lady. The petitioner thus lost the right to run the School from the premises.
He had also submitted that the petitioner had filed titles suit before civil court, bearing Title Suit No. 472 of 2024 and also filed criminal complaint case against the respondent no. 10 and other family members on November 27, 2024. Accordingly, submission was that since the petitioner has already approached the civil court, he cannot avail two parallel remedies at the same time i.e. before this Court and the Civil Court.
No comments:
Post a Comment