Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 122 (CAL)

JUMMAN ALI BISWAS v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2006-02-28

SOUMITRA PAL

body2006
SOUMITRA PAL, J. ( 1 ) IN the writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for several reliefs. The relevant prayer is as under:"a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents, particularly the Secretary, West Bengal Board of Madrasah being respondent No. 4 to withdraw, cancel and/or rescind the appointment of Administrator being annexure "p-5" to this petition so that the lawfully constituted Managing Committee including its office bearers can function properly and efficiently in the matter of Management of Anuadaha Chatkaberia High Madrasah, P. S. Deganga, District-North 24-Parganas. " ( 2 ) THE petitioner Nos. 1,2,3 and 4 are the President, Vice President, secretary and member respectively of the Managing Committee (for short 'the Committee') of the Anuadaha Chatkaberia High Madrasah. The facts relevant are that the said Committee was constituted in year 2005. The life of the said Committee is till 2008. It is alleged during the term of the Committee the Secretary of the West Bengal Board of madrasah Education, the respondent No. 4, by issuing the memorandum impugned, had appointed N. K Mondal, the Drawing and Disbursing officer of the said institution, as Administrator for a period of one year. Rule 8 (l) (iii) of the, Rules for Management of Recognized 'non-Government madrasahs (aided and unaided ). 2002 (for short 'the Rules')stipulates that before superseding, the Board should give a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Committee to present its case. In the instant case, since no opportunity was given, the impugned memorandum dated 16th February, 2006 appointing Administrator should be quashed. ( 3 ) LEARNED advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 4, submitted that pursuant to the recommendation made by the District inspector of Schools (SE), 24-Parganas (North), subsequently endorsed by the Director of School Education, the said respondent, following the rules, had issued the memorandum. ( 4 ) MR. Chakraborty, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the State supports the stand taken by Mr. Roy. ( 5 ) HEARD learned advocates for the parties. ( 6 ) THE issue is whether the respondent No. 4 was justified in issuing the impugned memo dated 16th February, 2006. ( 7 ) BEFORE deciding the issue it is necessary to set out the relevant portion of the Rules which is extracted hereunder:"8. Roy. ( 5 ) HEARD learned advocates for the parties. ( 6 ) THE issue is whether the respondent No. 4 was justified in issuing the impugned memo dated 16th February, 2006. ( 7 ) BEFORE deciding the issue it is necessary to set out the relevant portion of the Rules which is extracted hereunder:"8. Power of Board to approve and supersede the committee: (i) The constitution of a Committee shall be subject to the approval of the Board. (ii) The Board shall have the power to supersede a Committee. (a) If it is satisfied from the report of District Inspector of Schools/ director or otherwise that the committee has not been functioning properly, and (b) If the Committee fails to comply with the directions of the board of Director or the Government of West Bengal as the case may be. (iii) On supersession of a Committee or an expiry of the term of a committee the Board shall appoint an Administrator or an ad-hoc Committee to exercise the powers and perform the functions of the Committee. Provided that before superseding a Committee under this rule the Board shall give a reasonable opportunity to the Committee to present its case before the Board. " (Emphasis supplied) ( 8 ) PERUSING the Rule, I find, undoubtedly the Board has the power to supersede a Committee if it is satisfied from the report of the District inspector or Director or otherwise that it was not functioning properly and not complying with direction of the Board or the Government. ( 9 ) IT is clear from Rule 8 (1) (iii) that Committees have been divided into two categories - a) the term of a Committee which is yet expire and b) a Committee whose term has expired. ( 10 ) NOW the question is whether a Committee can be superseded during its tenure? A reading of the Rule 8 (l) (iii) shows compliance of the principles of natural justice is not required in a case where the term of a Committee has expired. But where the life of a Committee is yet to expire or to put it otherwise, the Committee is to be superseded during its lifetime, in that event the proviso stipulates that the "board shall give a reasonable opportunity to the Committee to present its case before the Board" meaning thereby the principles of natural justice have to be observed. But where the life of a Committee is yet to expire or to put it otherwise, the Committee is to be superseded during its lifetime, in that event the proviso stipulates that the "board shall give a reasonable opportunity to the Committee to present its case before the Board" meaning thereby the principles of natural justice have to be observed. The proviso to Rule 8 (l) (iii) in no uncertain terms gives protection to a Committee whose term has not expired. In that event before superseding a Committee it should be allowed to present its case failing which a citizen has every right to challenge such an action. ( 11 ) IN the instant case, the life of the Committee was upto 2008. Since the Committee was functioning, under proviso to Rule 8 (l) (iii)Board was bound to give reasonable opportunity to the Committee to present its case. In failing to do so, the Board had acted in violation of the said proviso. Therefore, action of the respondent No. 4 in appointing administrator cannot be sustained. Hence, the memorandum dated 16th February, 2006 issued by the respondent No. 4, is set aside and quashed. The writ petition, thus, succeeds. No order need be passed on the application for the addition of party.