JAYA ROY - (1.) .This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.4.2008 passed in W.P.(C) No. 1913 of 2008 whereby the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the petitioners to put all his grievances before the Director. Secondary Education Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, who shall look into the matter and pass necessary orders. For better appreciation, the judgment dated 23.4.2008 is quoted hereinbelow: - "As prayed, petitioner is permitted to add the Director, Secondary Education, Government of Jharkhand, Ranch!' as party respondent no. 4, in course of the day. It is submitted by Mr. Indrajit Sinha, appearing for the petitioner. That the Government cannot interfere with the school of the petitioner, which is a Non -Government added Minority School. He further submitted that no objection is to be obtained from the State Government only for the purpose of affiliation with ICSC Board and other than that State Government has got no role to play, but respondent no. 3 -Smt. Nirija Kujur, District Education Officer, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur is interfering with the Administration of the School and is also acting mala fide and has threatened coercive action against the petitioner. Mr. S. Akhtar, appearing for the State, submitted that at the first instance it will be proper that the matter is examined by the higher authorities. In the circumstances, petitioner is given liberty to put all his grievances before the Director, Secondary Education, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi (respondent no. 4) within two weeks from today, who will look into the matter and pass necessary orders in accordance with law as early as possible, and preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of such representation. It goes without saying that if he finds that respondent no. 3 has been acting in mala fide manner, he will take necessary action after hearing her in accordance with law. Till such decision is taken, no coercive step shall be taken against the petitioner. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case. With these observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of."
(2.) MR . Indrajeet Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant assailed the impugned order as being contrary to the reliefs sought for in the writ petition. Learned counsel submitted that in the writ petition, petitioner -appellant challenged the authority of the respondent to interfere with the affairs of the petitioner -school which is a Non -Government minority Institution. but the learned Single Judge instead of deciding the issue, conferred jurisdiction upon the authority to look into the matter and decide the grievances of the appellant. Learned Advocate General, appearing for the respondent -State, submitted that since the affiliation was granted vide notification by the State of Jharkhand, while issuing No Objection Certificate, various conditions were imposed upon the School, if any complaint is made, the authority of the respondents are entitled to look into those complaints and issue directions to the School for that purpose.
(3.) IN course of argument, both the counsel put reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case d T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Others vs. State of Karnataka and Others [(2002)8 S.C.C. 481 ][: 2003(1) JLJR (SC)1].;