AMARENDRA CHANDRA Vs. NARENDRA KUMAR BASU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Atricle 226 of the Constitution for a Writ in the nature of 'Quo Warranto' calling upon the respondents to exhibit the authority under which they are functioning and acting as the members of the Managing Committee of a school in South Calcutta known as the Chakra-beria High School and for an injunction restraining them from functioning as such.

(2.) The petitioner is the father and guardian of two students of the said Chakraberia School which is located at 93, Bakulbagan Road and at 23/1 Chakraberia Road, South Calcutta. It is alleged in the petition that at a meeting of the guardians of the students of the said school held on 14th May 1950 a Managing committee of the school was constituted in accordance with the Revised School Code which it is said was framed by the Calcutta University under the Indian Universities Act (Act VIII (8) of 1904). It is alleged that the respondents have constituted themselves into a rival Managing Committee and have wrongfully obtained the approval of the University in terms of Rule 5 of the Revised School Code although the conditions precedent which must exist before the University can validly grant its approval did not in fact exist, The petitioner challenges the rights of the respondents to be in office as members of the Managing Committee on the ground that the approval granted by the University has not been validly given in accordance with Rule 6 of the Revised School Code. It appears that the Managing Committee constituted by the respondents was formed on the 3rd September 1950, the approval of the University was asked for on or about the 13th September 1950 and the University granted its approval on the 18th September 1950. It appears further that the Managing Committee of this school is constituted not according to the provisions of the Revised School Code but the members of the Managing Committee are elected by the General Committee of the South Suburban School, another well-known School in South-Calcutta, and the members of the Committee formed by the respondents were so elected by the General Committee of the South Suburban School.

(3.) Mr. Einayak Banerjee, the learned Advocate for the respondents has contended that the offices held by the respondents not being statutory offices nor being offices of a public nature this application for a writ of 'Quo Warranto' is not maintainable.