KUNWAR BHOPAL SINGH Vs. SHEORAJ SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is obvious from the facts of the case, as revealed by the mate rial on record, that there are two factions in the body which manages the Kisan Inter Col lege, Mohiuddinpur. There have been inter necine differences and the usual story has been repeated in this Institution also that the rivalries amongst the members for securing power and position have culminated in the sordid state of affairs affecting prejudicially the students and the staff. It appears that the administration of the College was run at one time by Sri Bhopal Singh when some time in 1970 an award was given constituting the plaintiffs as the committee of manage- merit for a term of three years. This award was made a rule of the court. The Presi dent of this committee was one Sri Tara Singh and the Manager Sri Sheoraj Singh. But the spirit of accommodation and mutual respect and regard for each other amongst the members does not seem to have lasted and immediately afterwards allegations and counter-allegations began to be made by the factional groups, resulting in deterioration of the administration. The Principal Sri M. B. Lal also became involved. It is alleged that on 27-8-1972 a meeting of the general body was called at which the defendant-opposite parties were constituted as the new managing committee with Sri Bhopal Singh as President and Sri Khacheru Sharma as the Manager. A piquant situation then seems to have arisen. Two managing committees began to claim to be in effective control of the management. The plaintiff's committee on certain charges suspended the principal Sri M. B. Lal, pend ing inquiry into his conduct. Naturally the defendant's committee started sympathising with the Principal. The plaintiff committee then filed the suit, giving rise to this revision, against the Principal and the defendant com mittee for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the management of the college. Pending the suit, the plaintiffs sought a temporary injunction in the terms as prayed for in the plaint. The learned Civil Judge, trying the suit found that the Principal, Sri M. B. Lal, was in ef fective control of the office. He did not re cord any definite finding as to which of the committees was in the effective control of the management. He, however, held that the plaintiffs had not made out a prima facie case and the balance of convenience being in favour of the defendants refused to grant a temporary injunction. On appeal by the plaintiffs, the learned Additional District Judge held that the plaintiffs had a prima facie case as they were legally under the award, which was made the rule of the court, in control of the management of the college and the plaintiff committee being empowered under the regulations to suspend the princi pal pending inquiry into his conduct the action taken by the said committee against the Principal was prima facie legal. The ap peal was allowed and a temporary injunction restraining the Principal and the defendant committee was directed to be issued. The Principal Sri M. B. Lal and the President of the defendant committee have now come up in revision.

(2.) THERE is no doubt in my mind that in terms of the award which was made the rule of the Court the term of the plaintiff committee will not expire before December, 1973. It cannot be disputed that upto 20-8-1972 the plaintiff committee was in control of the management of the College. The dis pute as to who is in effective management of the College, the plaintiff committee or the defendant committee, will relate to the period after 20-8-1972, but the suit was filed imme diately after the meeting of the general body as alleged by the defendants. However, from the facts on record it appears that the defen dant committee started disbursing the pay and other expenses of the College through its Manager Sri Khacharu Sharma. There is also an uncontroverted assertion that the grant-aid was received by the College through Sri Khacheru Sharma. The District Inspec tor of School has not approved the action taken by the plaintiff committee in suspend ing the Principal Sri M. B. Lal though, of course, there is no provision in the regula tions to ask for the prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools for suspending a Principal or Teacher pending inquiry. Then it also appears that there was a hunger strike by some of the students protesting against the action of the plaintiff committee suspend ing the Principal. All this shows that there prevails great unrest and resentment with the administration of this College. Even the pre vious award which was made the rule of the court had not satisfied the factions that exist ed and the award appears to have been over thrown. It is unfortunate. There appears to be a break-down in the leadership. The Prin cipal Sri M. B. Lal seems to be an indirect victim of these factional fights which fact is borne out by the intervention of the District Inspector of Schools and the protest by the students. It is no doubt the law that before a plaintiff is entitled to a temporary injunction he should establish a prima facie case, the irreparable injury apprehended and the ba lance of convenience in his favour. But it is always difficult to balance all these consi derations on the facts and circumstances of each case, especially in suits for gaining con trol of the management and administration of educational institutions where the personal interest of the parties in some tangible pro perty does not come up for adjudication be fore the court and at the same time the inte rest of many other persons not party to the suit are vitally affected. I have on previous occasions in case of this nature given ex pression to an opinion that a strict adherence to the settled principles for grant of interim injunction some times may not in the mat ters of management of educational institu tions meet the requirements of the situation. I think a pragmatic view in such matter better subserves the ends of justice rather than stick ing to the consideration culled out from de cided cases involving adjudication of perso nal rights in tangible property.

(3.) THE result is that this application in revision is partly allowed. The order of the court below is modified. The plaintiffs' application for a temporary injunction against Sri M. B. Lal, defendant No. 1 in the suit, stands dismissed while all defendants other than Bhopal Singh, defendant No. 2 and Khacheru Sharma, defendant No. 4 will re main restrained from interfering with the management of the Institution.