Judgment C. Mukoorjee J. 1. Paikpara Raja Manindra Memorial High School is an institution recognised by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education. At the material time then said school had been receiving said from the Education Department of the West Bengal Government. The appellant petitioners 2 to 9 claimed to be Members of the Managing Committee reconstituted in the year 1960 According to the petitioners, Paikpara Raj Estate had founded the said school and the building of the school was alleged to be a trust property endowed by the said Estate: 2. In September. 1961 the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education had issued a circular on the subject of formation of Trust Bodies and for registration of the trust deeds The Board advised that recognised secondary school intending to come under trusts or to accept gift should seek approval of the Board to such term and conditions of the trust or girl. The petitioners have further alleged that in May. 1962 the Managing Committee of the school had forwarded to the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education the draft trust deed to be executed by the owners of the school building for approval. The West Bengal Board of Secondary Education by a letter dated 23th July, 1962 had informed the Secretary of the Managing Committee of the school that the Board had no objection to the execution of the said trust deed. Thereafter, the said trust deed was executed and registered in favour of the school and the properties mentioned in the said deed vested in trust in favour of the School A Copy of the trust deed was "forwarded to the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education only in August 1963 The petitioner, however had desired that the Board did not immediately approve a special constitution for the school 3. In January, 1970 a purported election for reconstitution of the Managing Committee was held according to the terms and conditions laid down in the said trust deed. We understand that person elected did not however, assume office and the petitioners who were elected in the year 1970 continued to administer and manage the said school. 4. In the meaning the Government of West Bengal, by a notification published in the Official Gazette on July 15,1969 made Rules of Management of Recognised Non- Government Institutions (Aided and Unaided). 1969. 4. In the meaning the Government of West Bengal, by a notification published in the Official Gazette on July 15,1969 made Rules of Management of Recognised Non- Government Institutions (Aided and Unaided). 1969. The Rule 31 of the said Rules specified the period within which every institution was to constitute its Committee in accordance with the said Rules the said Rule 31 was thereafter substituted by notification published in the extraordinary issue of the Calcutta Gazette dated 12th January. 1970. the State Government by another notification dated 8th January. 1974 published in the Calcutta Gazette (Extra-ordinary) dated 11th January, 1974 again amended Rule 31 of the Rules for Management of Recognised Non-Government Institutions (Aided and Unaided) 1969. One of the main points for Consideration in this appeal would be the scope and effect of the provisions contained in the said Rule 31 and the consequence of an institution failing or neglecting to Constitute the Committee within the period specified by the Rule 31. 5. the application made by the Managing Committee of aforesaid School for approving a special constitution had remained pending for consideration by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education. In the meantime, the District Inspector of Schools, 24 Parganas, by a letter dated 17th June, 1977 had directed the Headmaster to take steps for re-constitution of the Managing Committee of the school according to general rule. The Managing Committee of the School obtained Civil Rule No, 3760(W) of 1977 challenging the said directives. 6. On 18th August. 1978. the Administrator or the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education appointed Sri Amal Chakraborty a retired District Inspector of School as the Administrator of Raja Manindra Memorial High School for a period of six months or until further orders whichever was earlier with immediate effect. The Administrator in his said order recorded that the term of the Managing Committee had long expired. the Administrator was directed to take immediate charge and exercise powers and perform the functions of the Managing Committee of the school The Administrator was also directed to take steps for the re-constitution of the Managing Committee in accordance with the prescribed Rules. 7. On 25th September, 1978 the Civil Rule No. 3760(W) of 1977 obtained by the petitioners against the directives of the District Inspector of Schools for re-constitution was disposed of. 7. On 25th September, 1978 the Civil Rule No. 3760(W) of 1977 obtained by the petitioners against the directives of the District Inspector of Schools for re-constitution was disposed of. The learned Judge, Inter alia, directed the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education to consider within three months from the date of the Service of a copy of the Said order the application for approval of a special constitution in respect of the said school. On 23rd December, 1978 the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education hid accepted in part the prayer of the Managing Committee for approval of a special, constitution and approved a modified special constitution, We understand that on 26th February, 1979 the petitioners have again obtained a Rule under Article 226 of the Constitution against the said order dated 23rd December, 1978. 8. On 28th November, 1978 Amiya Kumar Mookerji. J. discharged civil Rule No. 8674,(W) of 1978 out of which the present appeal under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent arises Amiya Kumar Mookerji. J. without deciding the merits of the Case directed the Administrator appointed by the west Bengal Board of Secondary Education to re-constitute the Managing Committee of the School. 9. Mr. Dasgupta, learned Advocate for the appellant, has submitted that the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education has no power to interfere with the management of the aided private schools except in accordance with the provision of the West Bengal Board of Secondary education, 1963 and the rules made thereunder, According Co. Mr. Dugupta, the impugned order of suppression of the Managing Committee of the school which was made without giving any opportunity of hearing to the said Committee was not valid. According to Mr. Dasgupta, the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education can exercise such powers of suppression only in accordance with the provisions or Rule 8 and 31 of the Rules of Management of Non-Govt. Institutions (Aided and Unaided) 1969. Mr. Dasgupta next submitted that the school was under a private trust, The properties of the school vested in a Board of Trustees. By passing the impugned order of suppression the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education cannot interfere with the said proprietory rights of the Board of Trustees. Another submission of Mr. Dasgupta is that a suppression of the Managing Committee under Rule 31 can be made only after observing the rules of natural justice. By passing the impugned order of suppression the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education cannot interfere with the said proprietory rights of the Board of Trustees. Another submission of Mr. Dasgupta is that a suppression of the Managing Committee under Rule 31 can be made only after observing the rules of natural justice. In the instant Case, no hearing was given to the Managing Committee before superseding it and appointing an Administrator of the school. 10. The West Bengal Board of Secondary Education under sub-s. (2) of S. 27 of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act have generally the Power to direct, supervise and control secondary education ". Mr. Das. gupta, learned Advocate for the petitioner, is correct in his submission that the Said powers of the Board are subject to general and special orders of the State Government. The expression "subject to" in Sub-s, (2) of S. 27 connoles that the State Government shall have, authority to issue general or special orders in the matter of the Board’s power to direct, supervise and control secondary education. In other words, the State Government haa been given power to control or regulate the exercise of the Board's power under S. 27(2). The S. 45 of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act. 1961 empowers the State Government to make Rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act. The said Rules should be considered as the order of the State Government laying down the manner in witch the Board will supervise and exercise control over the management of Recognised Non-Government Institution (Aided and Unaided). 11. Mr. Dasgupta, learned Advocate for the appellant had submitted that the language of sub-s. (2) of S. 27 of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act, 1963 are not identical with those used in S, 37 of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act, 1950 Mr. Dasgupta further submitted that in view of the said difference of language we should hold that the extent of the powers of the Board over the institution recognised by it were narrower than the powers of the Board under the previous Act. According to Mr. Dasgupta, the decision of D.N. Sinha. J. (as he then was) in Makhanlal Chakraborty v. S K. Chatterjee. 58 CWN 617. which was rendered under the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act. According to Mr. Dasgupta, the decision of D.N. Sinha. J. (as he then was) in Makhanlal Chakraborty v. S K. Chatterjee. 58 CWN 617. which was rendered under the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act. 1950 has no manner of application to the present case which is governed by the Act of 1963. Admittedly in the instant case the Board has purported to supersede the Managing Committee of the School under Rule 31 of the said Rules of Management of Non Government Institutions (Aided and Unaided) 1969, The validity of the said order is under challenge. Therefore, it is unnecessary to consider in this case the Question whether apart from the provision of Rules 8 and 31. the Board has any power under S. 27(3) to Supersede the Managing Committee of a school recognised by it. 12. The petitioners were elected as the Members of the Managing Committee of the school in the year 1961. According to Rule 10 of the Rules of Management of Non-Government High School including Aided Schools. 1960 (made by the State Government by the Notification No. 3675 Edn(G)/G 8 B•40•59 dated 19th September. 1960 under S 62 read with S. 61 of the West Bengal Secondary Education Act 1960) the term of the Managing Committee of the school elected in the year 1961 was for three years from the date of the approval of the Committee by the Board unless the said term was extended by the Board for any reason. There is no material on record to indicate that the Board in fact had extended the term of the said Managing Committee. The said Managing Committee was still functioning when on 15Lh July. 1969 in exercise of the power conferred bf S. 45 of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act. 1963. the Governor of west Bengal made the Rules for Management of Recognised Non-Government Institutions (Aided and Unaided) 1969. The Rules for Management. 1960 stood repelled and every institution was required to constitute its Managing Committee in accordance with the Rules of 1969. The Rule 31 of the said Rules of 1969 originally specified 30th of April. 1970 as the date within which the institutions recognised by the Board were to constitution their Managing Committee. We have already pointed out that be said Rule 3l was amended by the Government Notification No.41-Edn. (S)/8H•12/72 8th January. The Rule 31 of the said Rules of 1969 originally specified 30th of April. 1970 as the date within which the institutions recognised by the Board were to constitution their Managing Committee. We have already pointed out that be said Rule 3l was amended by the Government Notification No.41-Edn. (S)/8H•12/72 8th January. 1974, the said amended Rule 3l specified that the Managing Committees of recognized Institution shall be reconstituted according to the provisions of be Rules of Management. 1969 within a period of six month from the date of the publication of the said notification. The said Notification was published in the Calcutta Gazette on 11th January, 1974. Therefore reconstitutions were to be completed within 11th of June. 1974, the amended Rule 31 exempted those institutions whose Managing Committees were already constituted in conformity with the Rules of 1969, before the publication of the said amended Rules. 13. the proviso to Rule 31 qualified the period specified in Rule 31 for constituting the Managing Committees of the Institutions, The Board under the said proviso was given power to grant extension to old Committee for good and sufficient reasons the Board under the maid proviso was also conferred power to supersede the old Committee in case the institution failed or neglected Co constitute its Committee within the periods specified or within the period extended. The power to give extension so Managing Committee which was constituted prior to coming into force of 1969 Rules was clearly discretionary. The expression good and sufficient reasons" qualified the manner in which the said discretion by the Board was to be exercised. We are unable to accept the submission that the Board can exercise in power to supersede under the proviso to Rule 31 only in call there were good and sufficient reasons. The language of the proviso clearly indicates that the Board shall have power to supersede a Committee which was constituted before coming into force of the Rules of Management, 1969 when the institution had failed or neglected to constitute the Committee within six months from the date of the publication of amended Rules in the Calcutta Gazette on 11th January. 1974 or within the period extended under the proviso by the Board's ardor. The expression "fails" in the context in which it has been used obviously means failure to re-constitute i.e. unsuccessful. 'Fails' does not necessarily imply any blame-worthy conduct. 1974 or within the period extended under the proviso by the Board's ardor. The expression "fails" in the context in which it has been used obviously means failure to re-constitute i.e. unsuccessful. 'Fails' does not necessarily imply any blame-worthy conduct. Such failure to reconstitute within the periods specified or within the period extended may be due to reasons beyond the control of the existing Managing Committee. Thus 'failure' may be intentional or unintentional. D. N. Sinha, J. (as he then was) in Dharanidhar Mondal v. Stale of West Bengal. AIR 1958 Calcutta 287. with reference to the provisions of the Bengal Village Self-Government Act, 1919, had observed that the words “fails to elect in sub-s. 6(4) of the Act means a failure to elect according to law. An election which was not been held in accordance with law and therefore, set aside is non an election at all and therefore, when election has been held illegal then it cannot be said that be elector have elected anybody because the purported election is no election in the eye of law. 14. In proviso to Rule 31 of the Rules of Management, 1969, the expression is not merely fails but fails or neglects. Therefore, a reconstitution within the periods specified or period extended may not take placed either because of failure or neglect the expression "neglect'• imports omission disregard or overlooking the provision for reconstitution in the Rule of Management, 1969 In a particular case, neglect to reconstitute may be wilful, deliberate. i.e. intentional. 15. The proviso to Rule 31 of the Rules of Management. 1969 has not expressly made any provision for giving opportunity of hearing to the Committee of the institution concerned before the Board succeeds the committee. The question is whether or not an opportunity of bearing to the Managing Committees is impliedly required. Such provision for opportunity of hearing can be engrafted as a part of the rule of natural justice prevent miscarriage of justice. It is well settled that the rules of natural justice have been made applicable not only in the matter of quasi judicial enquiries but also in case of administrative proceedings involving civil consequences. In this connection, it would be sufficient to refer to the Supreme Court decision in Maneka Gandhh. Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597 , where the principles of natural justice were exhaustively considered and explained. In this connection, it would be sufficient to refer to the Supreme Court decision in Maneka Gandhh. Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597 , where the principles of natural justice were exhaustively considered and explained. Bhagwati J, in his judgment in Maneka Gandhi’s case (supra) at page 627-28 with approval referred to the decision of Hedge J. in A.K. Kratpak's case ( AIR 1970 SC 150 ). Hedge J. had quoted a passage from the judgment of Lord Parker C.J. in H K (an infant) (1967) 2 Ch D. 149. The learned Judge had pointed out that the aim of the rules of natural justice was to secure justice or to put it negatively to prevent miscarriage of justice. These rules can operate only in areas not covered by any law validly made. In other words they do not supplant the law of the land but supplement if............The rules of natural justice applied whenever a just decision is to be arrived either in quasi-judicial or in administrative enquiries. It was further laid down wise particular rules of natural justice should apply to a given case must depend to a grate extent on the facts and circumstance of that case the framework of the law under which the enquiry is held and the constitutional of the Tribunal or body of persons appointed for that purpose. Whenever a complaint made before a court that some principles of natural justice had been Contravened the court has to decide whether the observance of that rule was necessary for rule a just decision on the facts of the case. Bhagwati J. in Maneka Gandhi', case (supra). After referring to the Supreme Court decision in DFO South Kheri v. Ram Sanehi. AIR 1973 SC 205 had laid down. "The law must therefore now be taken to be well settled that even in all administrative proceeding, which involves civil consequences the doctrine of natural justice must be held to be applicable.” 16. But we are inclined to held that the opportunity of hearing does not arise by implication in proviso to Rule 31. In the first place the said rule is a transitional provision. Its object was to continue the life of the Managing Committees which were constituted under the 1960. Rule. The Rules of 1960 stood repealed. Therefore every institution was bound to reconstitute its Managing Committee according to the Rules of Management 1969. In the first place the said rule is a transitional provision. Its object was to continue the life of the Managing Committees which were constituted under the 1960. Rule. The Rules of 1960 stood repealed. Therefore every institution was bound to reconstitute its Managing Committee according to the Rules of Management 1969. But reconstitution of the Managing Committee succeeding 1969 Rules were likely to require some time. Unless the terms of the existing Managing Committee were extended, there might have been deadlock in the administration in the recognised institutions. The object of Rule 31 was to pave the way for a smooth transition. The other object of the Rule 31 was to ensure that the Managing Committee according to 1969 Rules shall be reconstituted expeditiously. Therefore, the Rule 31 fixed a time limit i.e., six months from the date of the Gazette Notification of the amended Rule 31. The Board also reserved power to extend the said time limit for good and sufficient reasons when the Board does not extend the term of a Managing Committee which was constituted prior to enactment of 1969 Rules. The term of the Managing Committee by offence of time ends. When the term of the Managing Commitee expires the members of the Managing Committee have no further right to administer the construction concerned. 17. When the term of the Managing committee expires, the said Managing Committee becomes functus officio An order of super session made under proviso to Rule 31 has no penal effect. The sole ground for suppression under the proviso to Rule 31 is that the committee had failed or neglected to reconstitute according to Rules of 1969; Thereby no stigma is attached. Secondly, the term of the Members of the Managing Committee having ended, they cannot claim that an order of supersession under the Rule 31 has any Civil consequence by way of deprivation of any of the rights of the Members of the supersedes Committee. On the other hand when the Board supersedes a Managing Committee of a recognised institution under Rule 8 of the Rules of Management. 1969. the term of the Managing Committee is Cut short. When the Board under Rule 8(1) forms the opinion that the Committee had not been functioning properly, it necessarily records an adverse finding against the Managing Committee. Same casts a sugma. 1969. the term of the Managing Committee is Cut short. When the Board under Rule 8(1) forms the opinion that the Committee had not been functioning properly, it necessarily records an adverse finding against the Managing Committee. Same casts a sugma. Therefore the Rule 8(1) proviso expressly requires that the Board shall have due regard to the report of the Director of Public instruction and the Board shall afford a reasonable opportunity to the committee to present its case before the Board. The consequence of supersession under Rule 8 is not same as the consequence of supersession under proviso to Rule 31. The Board under Rule 31 removes a Managing Committee which was Constituted under the Rules of 1960 which stands repealed and the Committee, term had already ended therefore we conclude that the Board is not required to give any opportunity of hearing to Managing committee which had failed to reconstitute itself within the time specified to Rule 31 or within the time specified under proviso to Rule 3. But, we must make it clear that even in exercising power under proviso to Rule 31, the Board shall act fairly and bona fide. The mala fide exercise of power under the proviso to Rule 31, can be challenged in writ jurisdiction. 18. Mr. Arun Prakash Chatterjee learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Board referred to the following two unreported decisions (1) Board v. Mir Golam Nabi (F.M.A. 120 of 1970) disposed of on 10.11.1970 (P.B. Mukharji C.J. and Lalk ) ) (2). Biswaran Ganguli v. Board (C.R.No.7011(w) of 1969 disposed of on 8-2-1972 19. The Division Bench in West Bengal Board of Secondary Education & Others v. Mr. Golam Nabi (supra). upheld an interim order of injunction P.B. Mukherjee, C.J. in a Rule obtained by the Managing Committee of a School against an order of supersession, The Division Bench referred to the triable issues but did not finally pronounce their views. Therefore the said decision is not of much relevance. Anil Kumar Sen J made a Rule obtained by the Members of a Managing Committee against an order of supersession passed under Rule 8 of the Rules of Managing of Non-Government Institution (Aided and Unaided) 1969. Therefore the said decision is not of much relevance. Anil Kumar Sen J made a Rule obtained by the Members of a Managing Committee against an order of supersession passed under Rule 8 of the Rules of Managing of Non-Government Institution (Aided and Unaided) 1969. Anil Kumar Sen J. made the said rule absolute on the admitted position that the said supersession order was passed without any notice to show cause and without giving any opportunity to the Members of the Managing Committee to be heard. At the same time, his Lootdship made it clear that the Members of the Managing Committee had no further legal right to continue to act and discharge the Junctions of the Managing Committee in view of amended provisions of Rule 31 of 1969 Rules. By efflux or time the said Committee stood dissolved automatically by operation of the statutory Rules. Therefore, Anil Kumar Sen, J. directed the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education to appoint a fresh Administrator in accordance with law. The above view taken by Anil Kumar Sen J is in accord with our views regarding the Scope and effect of Rule 31 of the Rule of Management. 1969. 20. The decision of P.K. Banerjee. J. in Bimal Kumar Chatterjee v. President. West Bengal Board of Secondary Education ILR. (1970) 2 Calcutta 521, is distinguishable. In the said case after the rules of Management, 1969 had already come into force the President of the Board had purported to supersede the Managing Committee of a school under Rule 6 of 1960 Rules, Banerjee J. upheld the contention that after 1960 Rule stood repealed no power could be exercised under the said Rules. In the said case the Board did not give any opportunity to the Managing Committee to present its case as contempled under Rule 8 of 1969 Rules. Therefore. the supersession order was struck down Banerjee J rejected the contention that the term of the Managing Committee which challenged the supersession order had already expired and therefore, they had no locus standi to challenged the supersession order. Therefore. the supersession order was struck down Banerjee J rejected the contention that the term of the Managing Committee which challenged the supersession order had already expired and therefore, they had no locus standi to challenged the supersession order. Banerjee J. found on the facts of the said case that the Board had allowed the Managing Committee to continue to function pending the finalisation of promulgation of 1969 Rules and the term of the Managing Committee continued till the new election was held the order of supersession pre-supposed existence of a Managing Committee which was sought to be removed by the said order and in its price an Administrator was sough to be appointed. P.K. Benerjee J. 'in Bimal Kumar Chatterjee case (supra) had no occasion to consider effect of the amended Rule 31 which was inserted by Notification No. 41. Edn. (s/8B-12/72 8th January. 1974 published in the Calcutta Gazette On 11th January, 1974. Therefore, the said decision is not really relevent for deciding the present case which is governed by the said amended Rule 31 which was inserted by the aforesaid Notification published on 11th January, 1974. 21. It is undisputed that that re-constitution of the Managing Committee of be school according to the Rules of Management. 1969 could i10t Cake place within the specified time in Rule 31. therefore the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education was Competent to supersede the Managing Committee which was re-constituted in the year 1960. In this to the context of Rule 31 the expression "superseded" means to "replace" or to force Out" without casting any reflection or stigma upon the old Managing Committee. After the expiry of the time extended or specified as the case may be, under Rule 3l of the Rules of Management 1931, the previous Managing Committee is only a de facto Managing Committee which the Board may replace in the manner laid down in Rule 31. 22. The said replacement of supersession of the Managing Committee whose term had expired did not affect any vested property or proprietary right of the members of the said outgoing Managing Committee. The said members had beneficial interest in the school property. They themselves derived their rights as members according to the Rules of Management made by the Governor of West Bengal. Therefore, their rights as members of the Managing Committee are solely regulated by the said statutory rule. The said members had beneficial interest in the school property. They themselves derived their rights as members according to the Rules of Management made by the Governor of West Bengal. Therefore, their rights as members of the Managing Committee are solely regulated by the said statutory rule. In the instant Case, it has been alleged that the immovable properties of the school vested in the trustees. But the impugned order of supersession did not even purport to replace or remove the trustees under the Trust Deed in question. 23. For the foregoing reasons we hold that the petitioner were not entitled to challenge the impugned order of supersession and appointment of an Administrator of the school. The Administrator, however was bound to re constitute the Managing Committee of the School according to the approved constitution and subject to orders if any made by this Court relating to re constitution of the Managing Committee. 24. We accordingly, dismiss this appeal without any order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.