MANAGING COMMITTEE OF MITRA INSTITUTION Vs. ANISUR RAHAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FACTS

(2.) CONTENTION

(3.) Per contra, Mr. Subir Sanyal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, contended that the circular relied upon by Mr. Ghosh on the filling up of casual vacancy in case of Panchayat Nominee could not override the statutory provisions which would otherwise obligate the State to replace the Departmental Nominee on the retirement of the existing member who ceased to be a Departmental Nominee on his retirement. For instance, the case of guardian's representative, as per Rule 30, a guardian's representative would automatically disqualify himself or herself on his or her ward being passed out or having left the school for any reason. He also referred to Rule 10(3) which, inter alia, provides that quorum would denote fifty per cent of total number of members, fraction of any, being computed as one. He relied on two decisions of our Court being the case of Amarendra Nath Chatterjee Vs. Dwijendra Nath Halder and Ors. reported and an unreported decision in the case of Netai Chand Manna Vs. District Inspector of School (S.E.) Calcutta and Ors. dated June 11, 1992. He also relied on the Apex Court decision in the case of State through Narcotics Control Bureau Vs. Kulwant Singh, 2003 AIR(SC) 1599. He referred to paragraph 23 and 24 wherein the word "Department" was interpreted. According to the Apex Court, it would connote a branch or division of Government administration. It also observed, in absence of any precise definition, the word 'Department' must be given its natural and ordinary meaning unless the legal context would require a different meaning.