Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 504 (JHR)

Himanshu Shekhar pathak v. State of Jharkhand

2008-04-29

R.K.MERATHIA

body2008
Order Heard the parties finally. 2. Both these similar writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. In both the cases, petitioners have challenged the letter dated 24.5.2003, issued by the Registrar, Sidhu Kanhu University, Dumka (the University for short) intimating that Shri Prabhakar Mahto is the Secretary of the Managing Committee, the local M.L.A. Shri Bisheshwar Khan is the President and Shri Sukhdeo Manjhi being Incharge Principal, was asked to get his signature attested so that other person may not claim in future. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the writ petitions submitted that as the Bhagwat Jha Azad College (College in short) was not affiliated with the University and therefore the University had no right to interfere with the Management of the College. Dr. Himanshu Shekhar Pathak, writ petitioner in WPS No. 209 of 2007 is claiming that he was appointed as Principal by Basant Kumar Mishra, (the writ petitioner in WPS No. 4181 of 2003); and Basant Kumar Mishra is claiming that he was appointed as Secretary of the ad hoc Committee constituted by the University on 25.10.1991. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relied on the judgment reported in 1992(2) PLJR 835, The Governing Body of Baba Bhut Nath College vs. Bihar University and Ors. to show that the power to constitute a regular or ad hoc Committee can be exercised by the University only when the College is affiliated one. 6. The contention of the private respondents in the writ petitions IS that there was no affiliation after 1988-89 and therefore no Ad hoc Managing Committee could be constituted by the then Bhagalpur University in 1991. Moreover, as the said Ad hoc Committee was not functioning properly and rival claims were made on the Management of the College, there was resentment in local people, and accordingly a public meeting was held on 24.4.2001 in which Sri B.K. Mishra was debarred from functioning as Secretary, as he was not acting properly and was not keeping proper accounts of the College funds. In the said meeting, Local M.L.A. Shri Bisheshwar Khan was made President, and a retired teacher Mr. In the said meeting, Local M.L.A. Shri Bisheshwar Khan was made President, and a retired teacher Mr. Prabhakar Mahato was made Secretary but as dispute was raised by the petitioners and others, Vice-Chancellor of the University had to constitute an inspection committee which submitted it's report dated 11.3.2003, in which it was inter alia confirmed that the Managing Committee constituted in the said public meeting held on 24.4.2001 was functioning properly. It was further submitted that this writ petition cannot be entertained in view of the order dated 8.7.2003 passed. in W.P.(C) No. 4048 of 2002, which was filed by B.K. Mishra for affiliation of College, claiming himself to be the Secretary. The said decision taken in the public meeting on 24.4.2001 and the impugned letter dated 24.5.2003, which was based on such public decision, were brought to the notice of this Court but the following order was passed:- "This writ application has been filed by one B.K. Mishra as Secretary, Bhagwat Jha Azad College, Jamtara for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents/University to grant permanent affiliation to the college upto the degree course. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents/Sidhu Kanhu University, it IS stated that petitioner Mr. B.K. Mishra is no more Secretary of the Managing Committee. As per the report of the Inspection Committee, the President of the Managing Committee is Sri Bisheswar Khan local M.L.A. and Shri Prakash Mahto is the Secretary. The Princilpal of the College intervened in the matter and filed intervention petition supporting the case of the University. In course of argument, Shri G.C. Jha, learned counsel for the respondent/Principal produced before me a copy of letter Issued by the University vide Memo dated 24.5.2003 stating that Sri Prakash Mahto is Secretary and Sri B.K. Mishra local M.L.A. is the President of the Governing Body of the College. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner drawn my attention to Annexure-12 of the reply to the counter affidavit notification issued by the Bhagalpur University wherein present petitioner Mr. Mishra has been shown as Secretary of the Governing Body of the College. From perusal of the affidavit and considering the rival contentions made by the parties prima facie it appears that there is serious dispute with regard to office bearers of the Governing Body of the College. Mishra has been shown as Secretary of the Governing Body of the College. From perusal of the affidavit and considering the rival contentions made by the parties prima facie it appears that there is serious dispute with regard to office bearers of the Governing Body of the College. It would be proper for the parties to get their status declared first before approaching this Court for appropriate relief relating to affiliation of the College. It is made clear that any expression with regard to status of the persons made in this order will not be taken as final. With the aforesaid observation, this writ application is disposed of." 7. Thus, the questions are (i) whether the impugned letter dated 24.5.2003 amounts to interference in the management of the College; and (ii) whether in view of the aforesaid order of this Court, these writ petitions can be entertained? 8. The answer to both the questions are in negative. Firstly, the impugned Memo dated 24.5.2003, is based on the enquiry report which in turn was based on the decision taken in the public meeting held on 24.4.2001 and therefore it cannot be said that there has been interference by the University, in the Management of the College. Secondly, even if it is accepted that there has been interference by the University, these writ petitions cannot be entertained, at the instance of the writ petitioners unless they first get their status declared as per the aforesaid order dated 8.7.2003, passed in WPC No. 4048 of 2002, as again in these writ petitions, the status of the parties is in dispute. It is also pertinent to note that the aforesaid order was passed by this Court, while taking note of the rival contentions of the parties based on the said inspection report, the impugned Memo dated 24.5.2003 and also the order of the then Bhagalpur University constituting ad hoc Committee in 1991 (Annexure-12 in the said writ petition). 9. In the facts and circumstances, noticed above, I am not inclined to entertain these writ petitions, before the parties get their status declared by a competent authority/Court. These writ petitions are accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observations. However, the observations made, in this order will not prejudice the parties, in getting their status declared.