Madarsa Board may seek inquiry into rival committees but must hear all stakeholders before final decision.

The petitioner claimed to be the Secretary of a newly constituted Managing Committee of Madrasa No. 226/35, Madrasa Yatimkhana Islamiya, Darbhanga.

The Head Maulvi forwarded the list of the committee’s office-bearers and members to the Bihar State Madarsa Education Board for approval, along with a report of the Block Education Officer.

On the basis of a complaint made by the rival Managing Committee, the Board, by letter no. 1120 dated 6 May 2026, called for a report from the District Education Officer, Darbhanga.

The petitioner challenged this action and sought approval of his committee under the Bihar State Non-Government Recognized Aided Madrasa Managing Committee Rules, 2022.

Whether the Board acted illegally in calling for a report from the District Education Officer in relation to competing claims by rival Managing Committees under the Rules, 2022.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to an opportunity of hearing before the Board passed a final decision concerning the competing Managing Committees.

Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the decision in C.W.J.C. No. 9631 of 2016.

The Court applied the Bihar State Non-Government Recognized Aided Madrasa Managing Committee Rules, 2022, under which the Board may seek an official report and adjudicate competing claims regarding the constitution or recognition of a Madrasa Managing Committee.

The Court also applied the principle of natural justice that all affected stakeholders must be given a meaningful opportunity of hearing before an adverse or final administrative decision is taken.

The State relied on the coordinate Bench decision in C.W.J.C. No. 9631 of 2016 concerning maintainability, but the present judgment does not set out the detailed ratio of that decision.

The Court accepted the Board’s explanation that the matter involved rival claims by two Managing Committees and that calling for a report from the District Education Officer was consistent with the procedure contemplated under the Rules, 2022.

Since the report-gathering exercise was only a preliminary step and no final decision had yet been taken, the Court found no illegality in the Board’s action.

The Court nevertheless protected the petitioner’s procedural rights by directing that the Board must issue appropriate notice and provide an opportunity of hearing to all stakeholders before passing any final order.

The petition was accordingly closed and disposed of.

However, the Board was expressly directed to afford an opportunity of hearing to all stakeholders before passing any final order regarding the rival Managing Committees.