LALIT NARAYAN MITHILA UNIVERSITY Vs. DR.S.M.NAQUI IMAM DENTAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL, BAHERA, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, S.M.NAIYAR IMAM SON OF LATE S.M.ZAREEF, R/O BAHERA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the parties.

(2.) THIS letters patent appeal has been preferred by Lalit Narayan Mithila University and two of its officials against order of the learned Single Judge dated 22.1.2009, whereby the writ petition filed by Dr. S.M.Naqui Imam Dental College and Hospital, Bahera, Darbhanga bearing C.W.J.C. No. 17751. of 2008 has been disposed of with observations, which in our view, are totally innocuous and do not give any finding either in favour or against any person. The only reason, for which this appeal has been preferred by the University, as apparent from the submissions made by learned Senior Counsel for the University is an observation of the court wherein the learned Single Judge has noticed that upon certain allegations of facts the District Magistrate, Darbhanga directed for an enquiry and in response thereto the S.D.O., Benipur, Darbhanga submitted an enquiry report on 5.6.2008. In that view of the matter and in view of the fact that State Government on 113.2008 had also called for an enquiry report from the Bihar State Dental Council, it was observed by the learned Single Judge that if a report has been submitted by the Bihar State Dental Council then the State Government may pass appropriate orders and if no such report has been submitted by the council then the State may proceed on the basis of enquiry report submitted by the S.D.O., Benipur, Darbhanga. It was further clarified that the State while proceeding with such enquiry report/reports, as the case may be, shall adhere to the principles of natural justice by giving opportunity of hearing to all affected and concerned parties before taking a final decision within four months.

(3.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the appellants, the observation that the Hon 'ble Chancellor has already directed an enquiry and the Chancellor is competent enough to take all necessary consequential actions against all concerned was sufficient and the writ court should have refrained from observing that the State Government may also proceed with enquiry on the basis of report/reports after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. The gist of the submission is that in the matters relating to the University the Chancellor is the highest authority under the Act governing the University and it is not proper that at the same time two parallel enquiries should go on, one by the Chancellor and other by the State Government.