Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Padmesh JaIn Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.

Padmesh Jain vs The State of Bihar and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Patna Decided May 12, 2012
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/974548

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Patna High Court
Decided On
Subject
Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Padmesh Jain

Respondent

The State of Bihar and ors.

Excerpt

in the high court of judicature at patna miscellaneous jurisdiction case no.353 of 2011 padmesh jain, d/o late rajendra kumar jain, resident of mirganj, p.o. and p.s. mirganj, district gopalganj petitioner versus 1. the state of bihar 2. mr. kamal kumar sinha, the director, secondary education, department of human resources development, govt. of bihar, patna 3. mr. vishwanath pratap singh, the district education officer, gopalganj, district siwan, gopalganj 4. sudhir kumar jain, son of santosh kumar jain, jayent jyoti-5, riding road, sheikhpura, p.s. shastri nagar, district patna, the secretary, sahu jain balika high school, mirganj, p.s. mirganj, district gopalganj respondents ---------------------------------- 4. 12.1.2012 having heard counsel for the parties and taking into account that the district education officer, gopalganj has ultimately passed an order as contained in annexure a to the supplementary show cause filed by him, the allegation of contempt committed by him gets completely purged, inasmuch as he has finally realized his limits as with regard to interfering in the decision of the managing committee of a minority school. the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by the district education officer is not a legal and valid order cannot be gone into in contempt jurisdiction wherein only compliance of the order passed by this court has to be examined. if the petitioner is so aggrieved by the order of the district education officer, she will always have the liberty to take appropriate action as is permissible in law. with the aforementioned observation, this application is disposed of. the personal appearance of the district education officer, gopalganj is hereby dispensed with. (mihir kumar jha,j.) surendra/

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.353 of 2011 Padmesh Jain, D/o late Rajendra Kumar Jain, resident of Mirganj, P.O. and P.S. Mirganj, District Gopalganj Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Mr. Kamal Kumar Sinha, the Director, Secondary Education, Department of Human Resources Development, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. Mr. Vishwanath Pratap Singh, the District Education Officer, Gopalganj, District Siwan, Gopalganj 4. Sudhir Kumar Jain, son of Santosh Kumar Jain, Jayent Jyoti-5, Riding Road, Sheikhpura, P.S. Shastri Nagar, District Patna, the Secretary, Sahu Jain Balika High School, Mirganj, P.S. Mirganj, District Gopalganj Respondents ---------------------------------- 4. 12.1.2012 Having heard counsel for the parties and taking into account that the District Education Officer, Gopalganj has ultimately passed an order as contained in Annexure A to the supplementary show cause filed by him, the allegation of contempt committed by him gets completely purged, inasmuch as he has finally realized his limits as with regard to interfering in the decision of the Managing Committee of a minority school. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by the District Education Officer is not a legal and valid order cannot be gone into in contempt jurisdiction wherein only compliance of the order passed by this Court has to be examined. If the petitioner is so aggrieved by the order of the District Education Officer, she will always have the liberty to take appropriate action as is permissible in law. With the aforementioned observation, this application is disposed of. The personal appearance of the District Education Officer, Gopalganj is hereby dispensed with. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial