MANISH MISHRA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner filed the writ application because he happened to be the son of the individual in whose name an engineering college at Darbhanga was set up by the initiative of the family. This was done many decades ago as a private venture. The Court also cannot be unmindful of the fact that the father of the present petitioner also happened to be the Chief Minister of the State not once but at least three times. He was also Union Cabinet Minister. He has a reason to be aggrieved when the State authority decided to change the name of the institution after many-many years of its functioning by a kind of executive decision not based on a decision of the State Cabinet as such, as is the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. When the first effort was made and a notification was issued on 17.11.2008 under the signature of the Secretary of the Department, the petitioner approached the High Court by filing CWJC No.1194 of 2010. The learned single judge has taken a detailed note of the background under which the institution was set up, the take over of the institution by an Ordinance which was subsequently made into an Act in the year 1991. However, after dwelling on the various issues raised on behalf of the petitioner and the State, the learned single judge directed the State authorities to consider the representation to be moved by the petitioner.

(2.) Annexure-11 is the decision now which is dated 24.05.2013. The Principal Secretary, Science and Technology has rejected the objection of the petitioner and, therefore, the second round of litigation.

(3.) The Court is not required to go into the factual aspect of the matter any more as to when how the institution was set up and how the State Government decided to take it over etc. The core issue is whether the decision contained in Annexure-11 is legally sustainable or not.