LAWS(PAT)-2002-10-22

SARDAR PATEL MEMORIAL COLLEGE Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

Decided On October 29, 2002
Sardar Patel Memorial College Appellant
V/S
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the State and the intervenor.

(2.) IT appears that in the year 1978 certain land was settled in favour of the petitioner college which is a constituent college with Magadh University. The college authorities made an application to the State Government through its officers that they be provided proper assistance and protection so that they raise certain constructions over the land settled in their favour. The application was taken into its true spirit and a direction was issued that on deposit of certain amount proper protection would be provided to the petitioner. It appears that subsequent to the first direction certain inside action started taking place, therefore, the concerned officer who was to provide the assistance on payment of the money informed the Principal of the College that in view of letter dated 4.3.2002 bearing no. 1052 issued by the District Confidential Cell the assistance can not be provided. The amount of Rs. 28,700/ - deposited by the petitioner was also refunded. Being aggrieved by the letter dated 11.3.2002 refusing to provide the protection the petitioner has come to this Court inter alia submitting that the State authorities can not act whimsically or arbitrarily nor can they refuse to provide assistance specially when the petitioner is ready and willing to pay the amount.

(3.) THE respondent State also submitted that on an earlier occasion certain public spirited people had filed a suit under Order 1 Rule 8 C.P.C. and obtained a decree against defendants of the said matter. The petitioners in their additional affidavit/ rejoinder have submitted that an application was filed by the University to support the case and cause of the petitioner that the said ex -parte judgment be set aside and, later on the said judgment was set aside. From the said judgment it would clearly appear that the University was protecting and supporting the present petitioner.