In The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Bihar & Ors. vs. Jyoti Kumar & Ors. (2026), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice (Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Alok Kumar Sinha delivered a 8-page long judgement dated February 9, 2026, wherein, it observed:"5. The law is well settled that if an order has been passed without taking note of the relevant submissions of the parties, the liberty is always to approach the same Court. Also if any wrong noting has been made, it is open to the parties to approach the same Court while the matter is still fresh in its mind. Therefore, the judgment relied upon by the petitioners which is stated to have been placed but not considered by the learned Single Judge may be agitated in a civil review petition or by taking such other recourse as may be available in law. Liberty is accordingly granted to the appellants to seek appropriate remedy available in law."
The Letters Patent Appeal was filed by the State of Bihar and others challenging the order dated January 17, 2025 passed by the Single Judge in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8049 of 2023. There were twenty three petitioners in the said writ petition. They had prayed for issuance of a writ/writs in the nature of certiorari to set aside an order dated December 22, 2022 issued by Director, Land Records and Survey, Revenue and Land Reform Department, Bihar Government (Respondent No 4) by which he has been pleased to hold that certificates of Diploma in Civil Engineering produced by the petitioners are forged one and their appointments on the posts of Special Survey Amin has been further cancelled. They prayed also for holding that Certificates of Diploma in Civil Engineering obtained by petitioners as genuine and bona fide.
After issuance of notice, respondent no. 5, Dr. Momita Goswami, the Registrar of C.M.J University, filed
counter affidavit, supplementary counter affidavit, and second supplementary counter affidavit. The Single Judge in his judgment and order dated June 17, 2025, was pleased to hold as follows:-
“5. On perusal of the pleadings, the
supplementary affidavit dated 23.11.2024 of respondent No 5 and the documents annexed therein, it is clear that on the basis of an FIR registered against Respondent No 5, the State of Meghalaya vide its order dated 31.03.2014 passed the order of dissolution of the CMG University
(Respondent No 5) which has been challenged by the
University before the Meghalaya High Court and a
learned Single Judge of the Meghalaya High Court in
Writ Petition No 177 of 2014, on ground of non-
compliance of principles of natural justice, set aside the
order dated 31.03.2014 vide its judgment dated
16.07.2015 (Annexure F). The above order has been
challenged by the State of Meghalaya by filing Writ
Appeal No 14 of 2017 which was decided on 06.05.2021
and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated
16.07.2015 has been set aside and the matter was
remitted back to the learned Single Judge for
adjudication on merit. Respondent No 5 approached the
Supreme Court challenging the order dated 06.05.2021
passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of
Meghalaya and vide order dated 01.06.2021, Hon’ble the
Supreme Court directed the parties to maintain status quo
as to the functioning of the University in SLP (C) No
7081 of 2021. A categorical stand has been taken by
Respondent No 5 that after passing of the order dated
16.07.2015 by the learned Single Judge of the Meghalaya
High Court, the State of Meghalaya allowed the
University to function for 9 academic years without any
complaint and Respondent No 5 continuously functioned
from 2015 till date without any demur. Categorical
pleading has been taken by the University that the State
Government/UGC had allowed the University to function
smoothly from the academic year, 2015-2016 to 2023-
2024. The above stand taken by the University has not
been rebutted by the other respondents in their counter
affidavit. Thus, it is quite clear that the University
(Respondent No 5) was functioning from academic year,
2015-2016 to 2023-2024.
The second supplementary counter affidavit of Respondent No 5 dated 20.01.2025 further shows that
again the University has taken the stand that the degree of the petitioners has been verified by the University and it was found that all the petitioners herein have passed
their examination in the year, 2018 which is also
mentioned in the document with the supplementary counter affidavit dated 20.01.2025.
7. As contained in the documen, it is quite clear that all the petitioners herein have passed their examination from the CMG University
(Respondent No 5) in the year, 2018, i e, prior to their
recruitment which has not been disputed by the counsel
for the other respondents, i e, the State of Bihar.
Therefore, on this ground alone, both the orders
impugned are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, both the orders impugned dated 22.12.2022 and 23.11.2023 are set aside.
The matter is remitted back to the concerned respondents to take a decision afresh in the light of the
stand taken by Respondent No 5 in this petition.
9. Needless to say that the concerned respondents will pass a reasoned order as early as possible preferably within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”
3. The grounds taken by the learned counsel for the appellants in the present Letters Patent Appeal in paragraph nos. 13, 14 and 15, reads as follows:-
“13. That on completion of pleadings, the
matter was heard and during hearing of the writ petition,
the copy of judgment passed in Civil Appeal No. 9690 of
2024, (C.M.J. Foundation and other Versus State of
Meghalaya and others) dated 13.02.2025 was referred
before the Hon'ble Single Bench. The said appeal was
filed challenging the judgment and order dated 6th May,
2021 passed by the Division Bench of Meghalaya at
Shilong.in Writ Petition No. 14/17 whereby the
judgment and order dated 16.07.2017 passed by the
Hon'ble Single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court in Writ
Petition (C) No. 177/14 was quashed and the matter was
remitted back to the Hon'ble Single Judge to take
appropriate decision regarding the validity of the order
passed by this Hon'ble Court dissolving C.M.J.
University. During hearing of the said Civil Appeal by
the said Hon'ble Supreme Court 3 issued were framed
determination and they are as follows:-
(i) Whether the appointment of Chancellor of
the C.M.J. University was made with due
adherence of the procedure as mandated by
law?
(ii) Whether the dissolution order dated
31;03.2014 was passed with due adherence to
the procedure provided under section 48 of the
C.M.J. University Act, 2009 and in compliance
of the direction issued by this Hon'ble High
Court vide order dated 13.09.2013 in Special
Leave Petition (C) No. 1967/13 titled as C.M.J.
Foundation and others Versus the State of
Meghalaya and others?
(iii) Whether the Division Bench of the Hon'ble
High Court of Meghalaya was justified in
remitting back to the Hon'ble Single Judge for
reconsideration of matter while allowing the
writ Appeal No. 14/17.
14. That after a detailed hearing, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that the appointment of Chancellor
of C.M.J. University was nonest and void ab initio, the
dissolution order dated 31.03.2014 has been passed in
strict adherence to the procedural requirement of section
48 of the C.M.J. University Act, 2009. The Division
Bench of Meghalaya High Court was not justified in
remitting the matter back to the Hon'ble Single Judge for
consideration of merit and the decision of the State
Government dated 31st March, 2014 for dissolving the
C.M.J. University, Meghalaya 1st Set 1st Set was
affirmed.
15. That in spite of the above stated judgment being referred at the time of hearing of C.W.J.C. No.
8049 of 2023 the Single Judge passed the impugned judgment in contravention of the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court holding the dissolution of C.M.J. University to be proper and legal
and thus the Hon’ble Single Judge has committed an error.”
The appellants's counsel submitted that, even though the judgment pronounced in Civil Appeal No. 9690 of 2024 (C.M.J. Foundation and Ors vs. State of Meghalaya and Ors) was placed before the learned Single Judge, the same was not considered and therefore, the impugned order was passed remitting the matter back to the concerned respondents for taking a fresh decision in light of the stand taken by the
respondent no.5 in the writ petition. When a pertinent question was put to the learned counsel for the appellants as to whether any material was placed on record showing that the said decision referred to in paragraph nos. 13, 14 and 15 i.e. C.A. No.9690 of 2024, was placed before the Single Judge, the answer was in negative. However, he submits that the decision was placed and, if it had been taken into account, the result could have been otherwise.
The judgement was authored by Chief Justice Sahoo. He concluded: "6. It is made clear that no opinion has been expressed on the merits of the case. 7. It is stated by learned counsel for the appellants that a contempt petition has already been filed by the respondents for non-compliance of the impugned order. In view of such submission, it is open to the appellants to take appropriate measure in its interest, as per law. 8. With the aforesaid observation, the LPA stands disposed of. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of."
No comments:
Post a Comment