ANJANI NANDAN MISRA Vs. STATE AND A

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed by Anjani Nandan Mishra for quashing the order of the City Magistrate, Varanasi, dated 13th August, 1975 passed in a case under Sec. 144, Cr. P. C. In the petition, it was wrongly mentioned that it was in the case of 107/116, Cr. P. C. and as such an application for amendment had been filed which was allowed, and, Sec. 144, Cr. P. C. was ordered to be substituted for Sec. 107/116, Cr. P. C. The impugned order dated 13th August, 1975, is to the effect that it appeared to the Magistrate from the report of the Inspector Incharge, Chowk, Varanasi dated 10-8-1975 that a parallel working committee under the presidentship of Shri Anjani Nandan Mishra for the management of Bal Niketan Junior High School Sankatha Ghat, Varanasi had been formed and a crisis had arisen in the management of the School with the result that there was imminent danger 51 to public peace and tranquility and as such there was sufficient ground for proceeding under Sec. 144, Cr. P. C. By this order, the petitioner as President arid members of the committee under him were restrained from putting any obstruction in the. working of the Committee of the institution establised under the presidentship of Laxmi Narain Rastogi. It was further ordered that as the matter was of emergency, and the circumstances did not admit of serving of the notices in due time by the persons against whom the order was directed, ex-parte order was being passed.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he was first elected as a member of the General body of the School in the year 1968 and he was elected as President of the Managing Committee by the general body on 13th July, 1975. It was further been averred that there was no question of any parallel Managing Committee. It was also stated in" the petition that Laxmi Narain Rastogi himself had intimated to the petitioner in reply to his letter dated 5th July, 1975, that he had already submitted his resignation to the Basic Siksha Adhikari and he had nothing to do with the institution. He had also refused to nominate two persons of his party for being appointed in the Managing Committee. He had stated in his letter dated 6th July, 1975, that he was ill for a considerable time and so he wanted to be executed. A copy of the letter sent to Shri Rastogi dated 5-7-1975 and the reply of Shri Rastogi dated 6-7-1975 has been annexed as 'Annexure-I'. According to the petitioner, he was validly elected as President in the meeting of the general body called on 13th July, 1975, and ever since was in the management of the institution. It was also averred that it was due to some political pressure that the City Magistrate had taken proceedings under Sec. 144, Cr. P. C. In the petition, it was also stated that the petitioner had already executed surety bonds as required by the City Magistrate in the proceedings under Sec. 107/116, Cr. P. C., which too had been instituted against him.

(3.) THIS counter-affidavit was filed on the. date of hearing and as such no rejoinder affidavit could be filed, but the petitioner had filed a certified copy of the report of Inspector-in-charge, Chowk, Varanasi, dated 10-8-1975 on the basis of which the impugned order under Sec. 144, Cr. P. C. was passed. This report clearly shows that at that time the Managing Committee under the Presidentship of Shri Anjani Nandan Mishra had the control over the management of the school and his party was more powerful than the party of Shri Laxmi Narain Rastogi and as such the Managing Committee under the Presidentship of Laxmi Narain Rastogi was not constituted to take back the control of the management from Shri Anjani Nandan Mishra. He, therefore, recommended that proceedings be taken under Sec. 144, Cr. P. C. and the illegal committee under the Presidentship of Shri Anjani Nandan Mishra be restrained from taking any part in the management. According to this recommendation it would be possible for the District Inspector of Schools or the Basic Siksha Adhikari to get a new management elected. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that it is clear from the report that the management was actually in the hands of the Managing Committee of which the petitioner was the President and the effect of the ex parte order passed under Sec. 144, Cr. P. C. was to take possession of the school and the management from the hands of that committee and to give the same to Laxmi Narain Rastogi which was beyond the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Sec. 144, Cr. P. C. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on Saint Seikh v. Shy am Lal (1) and Indrasan Rai v. Enayt Khan (2). In the Calcutta case it was held that Sees. 144 and 145, Cr. P. C. deal with possession and possession only and they are intended to protect persons in possession and to prevent breaches of peace. In both the cases, it was held that summary power under Sec. 144. Cr. P. C. could not be invoked for the purpose of taking away possession from one party and putting the other party in possession. It was further held that the question of title could not be decided under the summary proceedings. Under the circumstances of those cases, it was held that the proper remedy, when the dispute was about immovable property, was to take recourse to Sec. 145, Cr. P. C. and not to Sec. 144, Cr. P. C.