JNANENDRA NARAYAN MUKHERJEE DR Vs. UNIVERSITY OF CALCUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As suggested and agreed by the learned lawyers appearing for the respective parties and in view of the similar points of facts and law are involved, this present case is taken up along with C. R. No. 6249(W) of 1979 and C. R. No. 6250(W) of 1979. The attention of this Court has been drawn to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 12249 of 1989 (Gopal Lal Ganguly v. University of Calcutta) dated 12/09/1982 that the cases pending before the trial Court should be heard expeditiously as far as practicable. It was submitted before this Court by the learned lawyers appearing for the respective parties that in spite of repeated directions, the University Authorities have not filed all the relevant documents for effective adjudication of the matter in dispute. It has been recorded in the order dated 20-11-90 that Miss Nirmala Kumar Chaturbedi learned Advocate appearing for the University of Calcutta felt very much embarrassed as she was not receiving proper instructions from the respondent. She took leave of this Court and retired from the case. The learned Advocates appearing for the University Authorities in other Rules could not keep their commitment to produce the connected records and documents, although, repeated opportunities were given to the respondent authorities. The University Authorities promised to produce the connected records in terms of direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court also. In view of such circumstances, this Court gave another chance to the University Authorities to enable the Vice-Chancellor or the Registrar of Calcutta University to appear before this Court and to avoid withholding the records from this Court. On 10th of January, 1991 the learned Government Pleader submitted before this Court that he will exercise his good office so that all necessary documents could be filed. In fact, certain documents have been filed by the State respondents on 8-1-91 and the said documents have been inspected by the learned lawyers of the writ petitioners and by the lawyers of the University Authorities. Another bunch of records has been produced on 10-1-91. For the ends of justice, this Court permitted the State respondents to produce the said documents by recording that there are no further documents. To avoid any controversy, this Court had observed that the wisdom of the learned lawyers will permit them to inspect the records and to assist this Court in the proper perspective to decide the case.

(2.) It appears that in Civil Rule No. 6246(W) of 1979, the petitioners viz. Dr. Jnanendra Narayan Mukherjee and six others claiming to be the Trustees of the Surendra Nath Group of Institution including Surendra Nath College of Law, Surendra Nath College (Day and Evening), Surendra Nath College for Women and Surendra Nath Primary and Secondary Schools for Boys and separate Schools for Girls have prayed inter alia for a writ of Mandamus to declare that the pretended amendments of the Statutes 93, 100, 100A in pursuance of Section 4 of the Calcutta University (Temporary and Supersession) Act, 1978 along with Section 58 and Sub-Section (2) of the Calcutta University Act, 1966 is illegal, unconstitutional, void and bad in law. It is stated in detail that at all material times Governing Bodies of the Surendra Nath Group of Colleges came within the purview of Statute 100 of the Calcutta University First Statutes, 1966 in view of the fact that the said College was and is managed by a trust and/or under the scheme laid down by the Hon'ble High Court. It is placed on record that the Schemes sanctioned by this Court, the function and/or management of Surendra Nath Group of Colleges vested in the Surendra Nath College Council which administered the affairs of the Colleges subject to the supreme financial control of the Trustees and in accordance with the terms with the Deed of Trust. It is further placed on record that after Calcutta University Act, 1966 came into force, the Syndicate caused fresh investigation to be held in respect of every College upon notice to them for the purposes of Statute 100 of the Calcutta University First Statutes. After due investigation, the Syndicate by its resolution dated 26/06/1970 recognized and included Surendra Nath College for Women and Surendra Nath College of Commerce which is the same as Surendra Nath Evening College. It is alleged that the University in purporting to supersede the Colleges has been directly supporting the disgruntled teachers and proceeding against Trustees who are all reputed educationists. It is further alleged that the Calcutta University has been attempting to interfere with the management of the said Surendra Nath Group of Colleges by appointment of an Administrator. There is a long list of litigation between the Trustees and the University Authorities. It is highlighted that on or about March, 1978 the Calcutta University (Temporary Supersession) Act, 1978 was passed whereby and whereupon the Calcutta University Council has been constituted superseding the Senate, Syndicate and the Academic Council. By the said Act, the said Calcutta University Council is vested with the powers and duties previously conferred to the Senate, Syndicate and the Academic Council. According to the petitioners, the said impugned amending Statutes was/were sent to the Vice-Chancellor by the Council for his assent. There is no person holding the office of the Vice-Chancellor and the said pretended amendments were purported to be made in consultation with the Pro-Vice-Chancellor who under the Act had no power and/or authority to approve the same and/or to give assent as alleged. The text of the pretended amendments incorporated in the Statutes 93, 100 and 100A of the Calcutta University Statutes have been quoted comprehensively. The grievances of the petitioners are that the Calcutta University being the creature of the Calcutta University Act, cannot exercise any power which has not been granted by the said Act either expressed or by necessary implications. The University has no power to withdraw or affect prejudicially their rights and privileges of the already affiliated Institutions, inter alia, to manage the institutions through the Governing Bodies constituted by them and in the premises aforesaid, the pretended application of Statutes 93, 100 and 100A in any form or the same is ultra vires, illegal and bad. It is contended that inasmuch as different provisions of the Calcutta University Act, 1966 recognize and maintain rights and privileges enjoyed by previously affiliated Colleges and any attempt that the same by or under the purported Statutes 93, 100, and 100A or amendments thereof would tantamount to interfere and or deprivation of the said rights and privileges guaranteed under previous University Act and continued by the Calcutta University Act, 1966 and such attempt is unconstitutional, ultra vires and void. It is canvassed with much emphasis that the Calcutta University Council has no power to amend the Calcutta University First Statutes and in any event after the Calcutta University (Temporary Supersession) Act, 1978 came into operation on the conditions laid down in Section 50 of the Calcutta University Act, 1966 has not in fact been fulfilled. It is submitted that in any event, Calcutta University (Temporary Supersession) Act, 1978 converses the powers of both Senate and the Syndicate in one single authority viz. the Council inasmuch as if the Council to make the draft in exercise of the power of the Syndicate and to consider the same in exercise of the powers of the Senate and if it has to send back to itself in exercise of the power of the Senate and resubmit again in exercise of the power of the Syndicate, the procedure would be an absurdity. Developing all these points further, the petitioners have prayed for the reliefs as indicated above on the grounds as set forth in the writ petition itself.- The Rule was issued by Sabyasachi Mukherjee J. (As His Lordship then was) on 11/06/1979 and an interim order was made in terms of prayers (f) and (i).

(3.) The second writ petition has been filed by Ranadeb Chowdhury and 9(nine) others challenging Section 9 of the Calcutta University (Temporary Supersession) Act, 1978 along with Section 58 and Sub-Section (2) of the Calcutta University Act, 1966 as illegal, unconstitutional, ultra vires and bad in law and for an appropriate Writ of Prohibition to restrain the respondents from giving effect to or acting under or in respect of the pretended amendments and the notice dated 27/04/1979, copies whereof are Annexure "E" to the said writ petition. The main challenge is that the impugned amending Statute is in excess of jurisdiction and by the said pretended amendments, the Trustees have been denied representations in relation to the management in the Constitution of the Governing Body of the said Trust Colleges as the Statute 93 provides for Donor's representation in the management only. The second Rule was also issued on the self-same date on 11/06/1979 and an interim order was made in terms of prayer (g).