[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Patna High Court
The State Of Bihar vs Amarendra Bhushan Singh on 10 December, 2025
Author: Sudhir Singh
Bench: Rajesh Kumar Verma, Sudhir Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.645 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3502 of 2025
======================================================
Smt. Nilam Singh Wife of Amrendra Bhushan Singh, Resident of Road No.1,
Kachichi Talab, Gardanibagh, Patna.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of
Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Education, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director (Primary Education), Department of Education, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
4. The Deputy Director (Primary Education), Department of Education,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
5. The Divisional Commissioner, Patna.
6. The District Magistrate, Patna.
7. The District Education Officer, Patna.
8. The District Programme Officer-cum-Member Secretary, Approval
Committee, Patna.
9. The Additional District Magistrate-cum-District Public Girevance Redressal
Officer, Patna.
10. St. Paul International School, Kacchi Talab, Gardanibagh, Patna through its
director namely Danish Abdin, Male, aged about 33 years, Son of Shri
Sarwar Abdin, Resident of Sanichara Road, Sandalpur, Mahendru, Patna,
Bihar- 800006.
11. Amrendra Bhushan Singh Son of not know, Resident of Road No. 1,
Kachichi Talab, Gardanibagh, Patna-800001.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 647 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3502 of 2025
======================================================
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of
Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Education, Govt. of Bihar,
Patna.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.645 of 2025 dt.10-12-2025
2/27
3. The Director, Primary Education, Department of Education, Govt. of Bihar,
Patna.
4. The Deputy Director Primary Education, Department of Education, Govt. of
Bihar, Patna.
5. The Divisional Commissioner, Patna.
6. The District Magistrate, Patna.
7. The District Education Officer, Patna.
8. The District Program Officer-Cum -Member Secretary, Approval
Committee, Patna.
9. The Additional District Magistrate cum District Public Grievance Redressal
Officer, Patna.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. Amarendra Bhushan Singh Son of not Known Resident of Road No.- 1,
Kachichi Talab, Gardanibagh, Patna- 800001.
2. St. Paul International School, Kacchi Talab, Gardanibagh, Patna through its
Director namely Danish Abdin male aged about 33 years son of Shri Sarwar
Abdin, resident of Sanichara Road, Sandalpur, Mahendru Patna, Bihar -
800006.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 645 of 2025)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Sanjiv Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. P.K. Shahi, AG
Mr. Ajay, GA 5
Mr. Pratik Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Resp. No.10 : Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, Sr. Advocate
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 647 of 2025)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. P.K. Shahi, AG
Mr. Ajay, GA 5
Mr. Pratik Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Resp. No. 1 : Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate
Smt. Nivedita Chaudhary, Advocate
For the Resp. No. 2 : Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Pawan Kumar Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA)
Patna High Court L.P.A No.645 of 2025 dt.10-12-2025
3/27
Date : 10-12-2025
Both the appeals arise from the same order, so both
the appeals will be heard together and a common
order/judgment will be passed for the same.
2. Heard Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava, learned senior
counsel for the appellant in LPA No. 645 of 2025 and Mr. P.K.
Shahi, learned Advocate General for the appellants in LPA No.
647 of 2025 and Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 10 in LPA No. 645
of 2025 and Respondent No. 2 in LPA No. 647 of 2025.
I.A No. 01 of 2025 (L.P.A. No. 645 of 2025)
3. The present interlocutory application has been filed
under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, seeking leave of
this Court to file the present memo of appeal.
4. For the reasons stated in the interlocutory
application, I.A. No. 01 of 2025 is allowed.
L.P.A No. 645 of 2025
5. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant
assailing the interim order dated 19.06.2025 passed in CWJC
No. 3502 of 2025 whereby the Hon'ble Single Judge has
directed the Respondent No. 8 (The District Programme Officer-
cum-Member Secretary, Approval Committee, Patna) to unseal
Patna High Court L.P.A No.645 of 2025 dt.10-12-2025
4/27
the school premises on or before 25.06.2025 without
considering the core issue of fraud, forgery and lack of
maintainability of the writ petition.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits 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
further submits 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.
7. 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
Patna High Court L.P.A No.645 of 2025 dt.10-12-2025
5/27
Bhushan Singh who has been made Respondent No. 10 in the
writ petition.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that after
the enforcement of the Right of Children to Free and
Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as
'R.T.E Act') which came into effect on 01.04.2010, all existing
schools were required to obtain recognition/approval from the
competent 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 has been
submitted that the alleged lease deed is said to have been
executed between the Director, Mr. Danish Abedin and the
appellant (Annexure-1 of the writ petition). Learned counsel for
the appellant submits that from perusal of the Annexure-1 of the
writ petition it becomes clear that although the lease purports to
be of 14 years commencing from 05.05.2018, but the same is
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
Patna High Court L.P.A No.645 of 2025 dt.10-12-2025
6/27
document, the District Education Officer, Patna had granted
recognition to the school in question.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits 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
further submits that in fact, the said lease deed was never
executed between the parties and from perusal of the document
which is annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition shows that
it is unregistered despite being sworn as a 14 years lease deed
and it does 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 submits that it appears
from the aforesaid that the lease deed (Annexure-1 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.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.645 of 2025 dt.10-12-2025
7/27
10. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in
the aforesaid background, 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 has been
further 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
Patna High Court L.P.A No.645 of 2025 dt.10-12-2025
8/27
submitted an application for approval of the school under the
R.T.E Act on e-samadhan portal.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant submits 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
26.12.2024
(Annexure- P/11 of the writ petition). 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
and 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
Patna High Court L.P.A No.645 of 2025 dt.10-12-2025
issued to seal the premises to prevent the respondent no. 10/writ
petitioner from further doing unauthorized operation.
Accordingly, the school was sealed by the respondent authority
in the presence of Magistrate. The respondent no. 10/writ
petitioner has filed CWJC No. 3502 of 2025 and challenged the
order dated 26.12.2024 which was issued by the District
Programme Officer (Annexure- P/11 of the writ petition) by
which the recognition of the school in question was cancelled as
well as the order of the Commissioner, Patna Division, who had
refused to interfere with the said cancellation. The allegation of
forgery directly related to the appellant and the alleged lease
deed was sworn to have been executed with the appellant, the
respondent no. 10/writ petitioner did not implead the appellant
as a party respondent. The husband of the appellant who has
been made Respondent No. 10 in the writ proceeding has filed a
counter affidavit clearly stating therein that the Annexure-1 of
the writ petition the purported lease deed is a forged and
fabricated document. The Respondent No. 10 (husband of the
appellant) had filed an I.A. No. 1 seeking initiation of
proceeding under Section 379 of the B.N.S.S, 2023 for the use
of forged document before the Court. He also brought to the
notice of this Court that the respondent no. 10/writ petitioner
Patna High Court L.P.A No.645 of 2025 dt.10-12-2025
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.
12. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that
the Respondent No. 10 in the writ petition who happens 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 have
also 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 Hon'ble Court. He further submits that during pendency of
the aforesaid writ, the respondent no. 10/writ petitioner has filed
an I.A. No. 02 of 2025, seeking direction to unseal the premises.
The Hon'ble 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 further submits
Patna High Court L.P.A No.645 of 2025 dt.10-12-2025
that from bare perusal of the record of CWJC No. 3502 of 2025,
it appears that the Hon'ble 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 Hon'ble 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 19.06.2025, the writ petition has been allowed by the
Hon'ble Single Judge.
13. Mr. P.K. Shahi, learned Advocate General
appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the cardinal
principle of law is that the writ jurisdiction is discretionary
power. Discretionary writ jurisdiction may not be emphasized if
the reliefs sought for is based on fraudulent conduct of the
litigant invoking remedy under writ jurisdiction. He further
relied upon the paragraph no. 6 of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Kusha Duruka Vs. State of Odisha
reported in (2024) 4 SCC 432 which is quoted hereinbelow:-
6. It was held in the judgments referred to
above that one of the two cherished basic
values by Indian society for centuries is
"satya" (truth) and the same has been put
under the carpet by the petitioner. Truth
Patna High Court L.P.A No.645 of 2025 dt.10-12-2025
constituted an integral part of the justice-
delivery system in the pre-Independence
era, however, post-Independence period has
seen drastic changes in our value system.
The materialism has overshadowed the old
ethos and the quest for personal gain has
become so intense that those involved in
litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of
falsehood, misrepresentation and
suppression of facts in the court
proceedings. In the last 40 years, the values
have gone down and now litigants can go to
any extent to mislead the court. They have
no respect for the truth. The principle has
been evolved to meet the challenges posed
by this new breed of litigants. Now it is well
settled that a litigant, who attempts to
pollute the stream of justice or who touches
the pure fountain of justice with tainted
hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim
or final. Suppression of material facts from
the court of law, is actually playing fraud
with the court. The maxim suppressio veri,
expressio falsi i.e. suppression of the truth is
equivalent to the expression of falsehood,
gets attracted. It is nothing but degradation
of moral values in the society, may be
because of our education system. Now we
are more happy to hear anything except
truth; read anything except truth; speak
anything except truth and believe anything
except truth. Someone rightly said that:
"Lies are very sweet, while truth is bitter,
that's why most people prefer telling lies."
14. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
the undisputed facts of the case would reveal the entire
foundation of the facts on the basis of which relief is claimed by
the writ petitioner is based on falsehood and manipulations. The
respondent no. 2/writ petitioner operated the school in the name
Patna High Court L.P.A No.645 of 2025 dt.10-12-2025
and style of St. Paul International School. The school in
question is claimed to be operated by a society registered under
the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The respondent no. 2/writ
petitioner made an application seeking recognition to the school
claimed to be operated in a rental premises and in support
thereof, an agreement executed between the school through its
Director, namely, Dr. Danish Abedin and Smt. Nilam Singh
(appellant in L.P.A. No. 645 of 2025). He further submits that it
is apparent on perusal of the alleged lease deed that though it
claimed to be for a period of 14 years commencing from
05.05.2018 but the same is unregistered. It does not bear the
signature of the lessor on any of the pages except the last page
of the so called lease deed. On the basis of application made by
the petitioner and on the strength of the said lease deed,
permission was accorded by the District Education Officer,
Patna. A complaint was made to the State Government and
District Education Officer, Patna alleging therein that the school
in question is running in a building which is more than 80 years
old and it is unsafe to allow the operation of a school in a
building and the same is hazardous for the young children. The
complainant also claimed that the school is indulged in illegal
activity by conducting the coaching classes for students of
Patna High Court L.P.A No.645 of 2025 dt.10-12-2025
higher classes. The State Government directed to inquire the
same by D.E.O., Patna and a report was to be submitted thereon.
The District Education Officer, Patna conducted a spot
inspection of the building and also issued notice to the
respondent no. 2/writ petitioner. In response to the notice issued
to the respondent no. 2/writ petitioner, the representative
appeared before the D.E.O., Patna and submitted response and
also claimed that the school is operating in a rental premises for
which a lease deed was executed by Smt. Nilam Singh on
05.05.2018 for a period of 14 years. The lease deed was
submitted for scrutiny and the District Education Officer called
upon Smt. Nilam Singh to submit her response to the reply
submitted by the respondent no. 2/writ petitioner. Smt. Nilam
Singh and her husband i.e., Respondent No. 10 in the writ
petition submitted their response stating therein that the lease
deed was a forged document. Smt. Nilam Singh also submitted
her admitted signature which was on various government
records like Passport, PAN Card, Bank documents etc. After
awarding opportunity to both the parties, a 3 member committee
of officers conducted inquiry and the District Education Officer,
Patna submitted a report to the State Government. In the said
report it was stated that the respondent no. 2/writ petitioner has
Patna High Court L.P.A No.645 of 2025 dt.10-12-2025
submitted an application for approval of the school under the
R.T.E Act on e-samadhan portal and the approval was granted
on the same portal issued by the office of District Education
Officer, Patna.
15. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
when the building was in a dilapidated condition then why
should be there a lease for 14 years? It appears from the lease
deed that the said lease deed does not bear the signature of
lessor on every page and it further appears that on comparison
of signature of Smt. Nilam Singh on the said lease deed from
her admitted signature on official documents that the signature
of Smt. Nilam Singh has been forged. Accordingly, a
recommendation was made for cancellation of approval granted
to the school in question. The State Government after
considering all the materials as mentioned aforesaid, approved
the proposal to cancel the approval of the school in question.
Accordingly, the direction was issued to the District Education
Officer, Patna to cancel the registration and further direction
was issued that no admission shall be taken for academic
session 2025-26. It was further directed that students who are
already admitted will be shifted to nearby school. Pursuant to
the order of the State Government, the order impugned in the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.645 of 2025 dt.10-12-2025
writ petition issued by the District Programme Officer (Estd.).
16. After issuing of the aforesaid order, the respondent
no. 2/writ petitioner filed application before the Commissioner,
Patna Division, Patna under Public Grievance Redressal Act
questioning the order contained in Annexure-P/11 of the writ
petition. The Public Grievance Authority declined to grant any
relief to the respondent no. 2/writ petitioner in view of the order
passed by the State Government as communicated by the
District Programme Officer (Estd.). He further submits that
notwithstanding the directions restraining the admission of
children and withdrawal of registration, we find that the
petitioner continues in the operation of school. The District
Education Officer inspected the school and found it to be in
operation and accordingly submitted a report to the State
Government, who directed to seal the school in question and
accordingly the school was sealed by the authority concerned. In
the meantime, the respondent no. 2/writ petitioner has filed a
writ application challenging the order dated 26.12.2024
(Annexure-P/11 of the writ petition) by which the registration of
school in question was cancelled. Apart from the aforesaid, the
respondent no. 2/writ petitioner has also challenged the order
passed by the Commissioner, Patna Division, who declined to
Patna High Court L.P.A No.645 of 2025 dt.10-12-2025
interfere with the order contained in Annexure-P/11 of the writ
petition.
17. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
interestingly the respondent no. 2/writ petitioner did not implead
Smt. Nilam Singh as a party respondent and she is lessor of the
so called lease agreement. Although husband of Smt. Nilam
Singh was made as Respondent No.10 in the writ proceeding
and he entered appearance and filed a counter affidavit stating
therein that Annexure-1 (lease agreement) is a forged document.
He has also filed Interlocutory Application praying for initiation
of proceeding under Section 379 of BNSS, 2023. The
Respondent No. 10 has also stated in the counter affidavit that
the respondent no. 2/writ petitioner has filed a Title Suit No. 472
of 2024 which is pending before the competent Civil Court and
an employee of the said school, namely, Smt. Bhavana Priya has
also filed a Title Suit No. 407 of 2024 claiming herself to be the
tenant of the school premises in question. A counter affidavit has
been filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 7 and 8 wherein an
exclusive reply has been submitted leading to cancellation of
registration of school in question. During the pendency of the
CWJC No. 3502 of 2025, the respondent no. 2/writ petitioner
has filed an Interlocutory Application in the writ proceeding
Patna High Court L.P.A No.645 of 2025 dt.10-12-2025
bearing I.A. No. 02 of 2025 seeking direction to unseal the
premises. He further submits that the learned writ Court without
even examining any of the aspect as discussed above in brief,
held that there is no provision for sealing of the premises under
RTE, Act and accordingly issued a direction for unsealing the
same.
18. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that in
pursuance of the order of the learned Single Judge directing to
unseal the premises, the respondent No. 2/writ petitioner had
made a representation, inter alia to the Governor of Bihar.
Needless to say, the Governor of Bihar had no jurisdiction and
submits that the matter of law in the present set of appeals are
not connected with any functioning of the Governor of State,
despite of that a letter was issued by the Office of the Governor
to the District Administration for compliance of the order dated
19.06.2025 passed in CWJC No. 3502 of 2025. He further
submits that in response to the said letter, the District Education
Officer sent a reply to the Governor's office stating that the State
Government has preferred the present LPA No. 647 of 2025
before the Hon'ble High Court. Despite issuance of order by the
Hon'ble Court which was known to the writ petitioner, he again
manipulated the order from an unauthorized person in the name
Patna High Court L.P.A No.645 of 2025 dt.10-12-2025
of S.D.O, Patna Sadar and got Magistrate deputed to unseal the
premises. In the affidavit filed by the District Education Officer,
Patna it is clearly stated that the letter deputing the Magistrate
was not signed by the S.D.O, Patna Sadar. The District
Magistrate in his communication addressed to the Advocate
General has clearly stated that the letter bears the signature of
only in-charge clerk and it does not bear the signature of the
Sub-Divisional Officer, Patna Sadar (Annexure-R/1 of the
supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant no. 6).
19. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that it
is evident from the aforesaid that the respondent No.2/writ
petitioner has obtained the registration/approval on the strength
of the forged lease deed and apart from the document being
forged, it is an unregistered lease deed for a period of 14 years
and it does not have any legal sanctity. The respondent
No.2/writ petitioner indulged in fraudulent practice by getting
an order issued by the in-charge clerk and not by the authorized
officer i.e. S.D.O, Patna Sadar.
20. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 10/writ
petitioner in LPA No. 645 of 2025 and respondent no. 2/writ
petitioner in LPA No. 647 of 2025 submits that initially the
respondent no.10/respondent no. 2/writ petitioner has filed the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.645 of 2025 dt.10-12-2025
writ petition seeking quashing of the order no. 4429 dated
26.12.2024 (Annexure- P/11 of the writ petition) issued by the
District Programme Officer, Patna cancelling the approval
granted to respondent no.10/respondent no. 2/writ petitioner
under the Act and also for quashing of orders dated 14.12.2024
and 13.02.2025. He further submits that while the writ petition
was pending, an I.A. No. 03 of 2025 has been filed by the
respondent no.10/respondent no. 2/writ petitioner seeking
amendment in the relief portion to challenge the order no. 2295
dated 10.06.2025 by the District Programme Officer, Patna
whereby the respondent no.10/respondent no. 2/writ petitioner
was called upon to vacate the building premises of the school in
question and transfer the children/students from the said school
to the nearby school and submit a report of compliance thereof,
failing which, appropriate action would be taken against him.
The respondent no.10/respondent no. 2/writ petitioner had filed
I.A. No. 02 of 2025 seeking for a direction upon the Respondent
Nos. 6 to 9 in the writ petition for unsealing of the school
premises which was sealed without any such authority of law.
The respondent no. 10 of the writ petition had submitted a
complaint in the office of Director of Secondary Education,
Government of Bihar alleging therein that the school in question
Patna High Court L.P.A No.645 of 2025 dt.10-12-2025
was unauthorized/unregistered and the coaching in the said
school in the name and style of St. Paul International School
was being operated in an old building which can cause fear of
any mishap due to its poor condition. He further submits that the
Hon'ble Writ Court after hearing the parties had came to the
conclusion that there is no provision under the R.T.E Act to
unseal the premises of the school in question. As far as the title
suit which is pending for consideration before the competent
Court of law is concerned, the reliefs prayed in the said Title
Suit no. 472 of 2024 are totally different and does not involve
the illegal action of the respondent-District Education Authority
in sealing of the premises under Section 18 of the Act. The said
action of the respondents had nothing to do with the title suit
which was filed against the owner of the premises in
apprehension of eviction from the premises due to tenancy
dispute. The action of the District Programme Officer, Patna
directing the respondent no.10/respondent no. 2/writ petitioner
to vacate the school premises was consequential to the
cancellation of the approval/recognition and therefore, need a
different and new cause of action. The main issue raised in the
writ petition is with regard to the correctness and subsequent to
the order of cancellation of approval/recognition passed by the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.645 of 2025 dt.10-12-2025
District Education Authority on the basis of the decision
regarding genuineness of the signature of Smt. Nilam Singh on
the lease deed agreement dated 05.05.2018 which is absolutely
without jurisdiction in terms of Section 18 of the Act. The
principal issue involved in the writ petition was as to whether
the District Education Authority could have exercised
jurisdiction of Civil Court to decide the dispute of forgery with
regard to the signature on the lease agreement which is a
question of law relating to the exercise of powers. And in the
present case, the learned counsel for the appellants argued that
the Court may consider directing for an enquiry and institution
of a criminal proceeding against the writ petitioner who practice
fraud.
21. Learned counsel for the State relied upon the
paragraph no. 23 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr. Vs. Meenakshi
Marwah & Anr. reported in (2005) 4 SCC 370 which is quoted
hereinbelow:-
"23. In view of the language used in Section
340 CrPC the court is not bound to make a
complaint regarding commission of an
offence referred to in Section 195(1)(b), as
the section is conditioned by the words
"court is of opinion that it is expedient in the
interests of justice". This shows that such a
course will be adopted only if the interest of
justice requires and not in every case. Before
Patna High Court L.P.A No.645 of 2025 dt.10-12-2025
filing of the complaint, the court may hold a
preliminary enquiry and record a finding to
the effect that it is expedient in the interests
of justice that enquiry should be made into
any of the offences referred to in Section
195(1)(b). This expediency will normally be
judged by the court by weighing not the
magnitude of injury suffered by the person
affected by such forgery or forged document,
but having regard to the effect or impact,
such commission of offence has upon
administration of justice. It is possible that
such forged document or forgery may cause
a very serious or substantial injury to a
person in the sense that it may deprive him
of a very valuable property or status or the
like, but such document may be just a piece
of evidence produced or given in evidence in
court, where voluminous evidence may have
been adduced and the effect of such piece of
evidence on the broad concept of
administration of justice may be minimal. In
such circumstances, the court may not
consider it expedient in the interest of justice
to make a complaint. The broad view of
clause (b)(ii), as canvassed by learned
counsel for the appellants, would render the
victim of such forgery or forged document
remediless. Any interpretation which leads to
a situation where a victim of a crime is
rendered remediless, has to be discarded."
22. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at
length and we are of the considered opinion that it is apparent
from the aforesaid submissions and the materials on record that
the respondent no.10/respondent no. 2/writ petitioner obtained
registration/approval on the strength of forged lease deed and
apart from the document being forged, it is unregistered lease
deed for a period of 14 years and does not have legal sanctity.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.645 of 2025 dt.10-12-2025
The settled preposition of law indicates that the stream of justice
delivery system has to be kept insulated from the litigants who
practice fraud. Such litigants are not even entitled for the grant
of opportunity of hearing. The learned Writ Court ought to have
first examine these aspects which were recorded before the
learned Writ Court but it appears from the order dated
19.06.2025 that without even making any reference to the fact
as discussed above, the learned Writ Court passed an order
directing to unseal the premises in question. The learned Writ
Court even observed that the title suit filed by the respondent
no.10/respondent no. 2/writ petitioner is pending for
consideration before the Civil Court and it was further pointed
out that another title suit was filed by an employee which is also
pending for consideration before the Civil Court. Despite of that
the writ petition was entertained and the impugned order was
passed.
23. The impugned order was passed without
impleading the appellant (in LPA No. 645 of 2025) as a
necessary party. The appellant (in LPA No. 645 of 2025) is the
owner of the premises/building whose forged signature formed
the basis of the alleged lease deed and by not making the
appellant a party in the writ proceeding, the writ petition is not
Patna High Court L.P.A No.645 of 2025 dt.10-12-2025
maintainable. The respondent no.10/respondent no. 2/writ
petitioner used forged documents and had already approached
the competent Civil Court in Title Suit No. 472 of 2024. The
direction to unseal the school in question was wrong and illegal
as the school in question was violating the order dated
26.12.2024 (Annexure-P/11 of the writ petition).
24. If a forged document is used in the court
proceeding, the Court may direct for an enquiry and institution
of a criminal proceeding against the person who practice fraud.
It appears from the interim order/impugned order which reflect
that the learned Writ Court has allowed the writ petition without
considering the facts as mentioned aforesaid and secondly, from
bare perusal of the Section 18 the R.T.E Act which suggest that
no school to be established without obtaining certificate of
recognition. In the present case, the respondent authority after
due consideration and after enquiry has found that the
respondent no.10/respondent no. 2/writ petitioner has obtained
the recognition of the school in question on the basis of forged
lease deed agreement which is the subject matter of the Title
Suit No. 472 of 2024. Apart from the aforesaid, the school in
question was recognized on the basis of the aforesaid forged
documents and the same is subject matter of the title suit and
Patna High Court L.P.A No.645 of 2025 dt.10-12-2025
even the respondent no.10/respondent no. 2/writ petitioner has
not obtained any such order from the competent Civil Court in
the aforesaid title suit. It appears from the Act that one of the
condition for recognition of the school in question is that
whether the school has a valid building/land? In the present case
the building/land was the subject matter of the title suit which is
pending before the competent Civil Court and the authority after
knowing all the aforesaid facts has rightly cancelled the
recognition of the school in question after giving opportunity of
hearing to respondent no.10/respondent no. 2/writ petitioner. It
also appears from the order of the S.D.O, Patna Sadar that the
order was issued by the in-charge clerk and not by any
authorized officer i.e. S.D.O which suggest that the respondent
no.10/respondent no. 2/writ petitioner has obtained the letter of
S.D.O, Patna Sadar on the strength of forged lease deed and
manipulations in the order of the S.D.O, Patna Sadar.
25. In view of the above reasoning and the stated facts
and circumstances, 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
Patna High Court L.P.A No.645 of 2025 dt.10-12-2025
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.
27. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.
(Sudhir Singh, ACJ)
I agree
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Vanisha/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 11.11.2025
Uploading Date 10.12.2025
Transmission Date NA
