Statutory authority must exercise power to withdraw Madarsa affiliation following inquiry recommendations for non-compliance.

The petitioner, serving as the Secretary of Madarsa Rahmania, filed a writ petition seeking an inquiry into alleged forgery involving Letter No. 2712, dated 16-12-2013

He alleged that private respondents used forged documents to include their Madarsa in the "2459 category" list to illegally obtain state financial benefits

During the pendency of the case, the State Education Department conducted inquiries through a three-member committee

The inquiry identified that while several Madarsas fulfilled the requisite criteria, others did not, leading to recommendations for the cancellation of recognition for specific institutions

The Bihar State Madarsa Education Board ("the Board") was identified as the statutory body competent to act upon these recommendations

1. Whether the State and the Board are mandated to take punitive and corrective action against Madarsas found to have secured recognition or financial aid through fraudulent means or non-compliance with standards

2. Whether the Board possesses the exclusive jurisdiction to withdraw or cancel the affiliation of a Madarsa under the relevant statutes and rules

The court applied Section 2 of the Bihar Rajya Madarsa Shiksha Board Adhiniyam, 1981, which vests the Board with exclusive jurisdiction to grant or withdraw recognition

The court further relied on Rule 12 of the Bihar State Madarsa Education Board Rules, 2022 ("2022 Rules")

Rule 12(2) empowers the Board to withdraw, cancel, or suspend affiliation if a Madarsa fails to maintain standards or acts detrimentally to the interests of students or the education system, subject to providing the concerned Madarsa a reasonable opportunity of being heard

The court evaluated the 5th Supplementary Counter Affidavit filed by the State, which confirmed that an inquiry into the "2459 category" Madarsas had already been initiated and partially concluded

The inquiry revealed that 23 institutions were recommended for cancellation for failing to meet criteria, while others were under review

The court noted that the Board had already started processing these recommendations and had lifted bans on certain Madarsas that were found compliant upon spot verification

The court reasoned that since the departmental inquiry requested by the petitioner was already active and had resulted in specific recommendations for cancellation, the primary objective of the writ was being addressed by the statutory authorities

The court emphasized that the Board must now exercise its power under Rule 12(2) of the 2022 Rules to finalize these administrative actions while adhering to the principles of natural justice

The court directed Respondent Nos. 8 to 10 (the Board) to take necessary follow-up action in accordance with the law, specifically Rule 12(2) of the 2022 Rules

The writ petition was disposed of accordingly