UNIVERSITY OF CALCUTTA Vs. RANADEB CHAUDHURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPEAL No. 3919 of 1991 is directed against the judgment and order dated 27th November 1991 passed in C. R. No. 3836 (w)of 1988 on a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution. Mr. Justice S. A. Masud, retired, and others, are the writ petitioners in c. R. No. 3836 (w) of 1988. The writ application challenged resolution dated april 26, 1988 of the Syndicate of the Calcutta University, whereby, the management and control of the Surendranath College of Law was taken over by the University and also against the[interference with the rights of the legally, validly constituted governing body and/or trustees of the said law college on the basis the said resolution of the Syndicate, petitioner nos. 2 to 8 are the Trustees of Surendranath Group of educational Institutions including the Law College, Surendranath College, both Day and Evening, Surendranath for Women and Surendranath Primary and Secondary Schools for Boys and Girls, separately. These institutions are managed by the Trustees in accordance with the Deed of Trust. The college was established by Rastraguru Surendranath Banerjee to the year 1875. The college was known as Ripon College of Law. In an originating summons proceeding suit no. 1064 of 1926 under Section 92 of the C. P. C, a constitution for the managing committee of the said Law College was formulate. Thereafter, there were various other legal proceedings with regard to the constitution of the managing committee of the said law college. Mr. Jashodev Chaudhuri was entrusted in the joint operation of the bank. It was detected from the vouchers prepared and certified by the office of the college, that the certificate made by the office was irregular. It was decided that the accounts would be examined. One member of the trust office would examine the accounts of daily collections of fees from the students and the same would be credited to the bank. The Principal of the College did not credit the amount during the peak period, namely, August-September 1987. He himself took over the charge of daily collection. It was found that a sum of Rs. 96,000/- collected by the office was not accounted for. The accountant and the head clerk of the said Law college admitted in writing that the above sums were taken out by the ex-principal; but did not make any deposit with the bank. In this situation board of Trustees by a resolution dated November 5, 1987 decided to take back all books of accounts, records, etc. to the office of the trustees for verification. But the office expressed their inability to produce the account books. The trustees were prevented by a group of students from taking over the papers from the office. The auditor sent for auditing the account, was driven out. The trust office was raided by some students with the object of taking away papers from the office. A new principal was appointed who was not allowed to join. After much persuasion, he joined the college. Many other irregularities regarding holding of classes and examination were also detected. The college was involved in a large number of litigation. A Division Bench of this court passed an order maintaining status quo. Professor In charge made a report indicating certain irregularities, which has been described in the writ application. On scrutiny, it appeared that the sanctioned strength of the college was 960 students, but the Controller of Examination of the University issued over 4,000 forms and collected fees for issuing admit cards, and results were published. Such action, on the part of the University, was highly irregular and mala fide. The Syndicate of the University by a resolution sought to appoint ad-hoc committee to take over the control and management of the said law college ousting the legally constituted governing body. This is a colourable exercise of power without giving any notice to the governing body or the trustees. The supersession of the governing body was challenged in C. R. No. 724 (w) of 1979. In an injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with their rights was passed. In the affidavit-in-opposition, the University disclosed its case. On november 25, 1986, a learned Single Bench of this court passed an order to the following effect "instead of present administrator. Sri Parimal Kar, the administration of the college would be in the hands of the Ad hoc Committee consisting of three persons i. e. (1) namely, Mr. Ajit Mukherjee as the Chairman, (2)Ajit Ghosh and (3) Bishnu Pada Mukherjee, whose decision shall be taken final on the matters". Present administration was directed to make over charge. Certain other directions were also made. The order was appealed against and the appeal is pending. Considering the allegations on irregularities and mal-administration. the enquiry committee consisting of Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. N. Roy. Mr. Biswanath Bajpay and Prof. A. N. Das, an inspector of the college, was formed. The committee submitted its report. The report contained various irregularities and made certain recommendations. Referring to Sub-Section 10 and 11 Section 4 of the Calcutta University Act, 1979, the petitioners submitted that the University authorities has adduced its power by superseding the governing body. Various other grounds have also been taken. It was contended that the order of supersession is bad, in as much as, the Syndicate is not a proper and appropriate authority to pass such an order in respect of a post graduate college under the University Act. The syndicate has no authority to supersede a post graduate college like the law college. It is only a recommending body in respect of all post graduate colleges. It is also challenged Section 4 (10) and 4 (11) of 1979 (1) as ultra-vires of the constitution, in as much as, no assent of the President as required under article 31a (1) (b) of the Constitution of India was taken. The statutory period is limited to the four corners of the Act. The power to supersede was deleted under the provisions of the 1979 Act. Accordingly, it had no authority to supersede the managing committee. After considering the rival considerations of the parties, the learned Trial judge set aside the impugned proceedings including the order of supersession. He directed that the trustees shall be restored to power and control of the said law college fort with. The Ad-hoc Committee approved by the University, shall cease to hold management and control of the said Law College. Certain other directions were also passed. In F. M. A. T. No. 3919, the learned Trial Judge after considering the submissions made by the parties had held at the material time that the Law college being a post graduate college under the University Act, power of the syndicate can at best be treated as recommendatory in nature. An order of supersession is required to be passed toy the University under Section 4 (1) and 4 (11) of the Act. Since 1966 Act has been repealed, the University has no residuary power under the present law governing the University. The Syndicate has no power whatsoever to supersede governing body of a post graduate college as has been done in the instant case. The learned Trial Judge further held assuming that the syndicate has such power, it has not been exercised in conformity with the Rules, Statutes, Ordinance and Regulations. Section 4 (10) of the Act was not complied with. Governing Body was not asked to show cause and no opportunity of help was granted to the petitioners. The learned trial Judge further held that the University authorities failed to produce the records to meet the challenge of the writ petitioner that temporary taking over of the disputed law college under Section 4 (1) and 4 (11) of the 1979 Act was a violation of Article 19 (1) (g) and 31 (A) (1) (b) of the Constitution of India, in as much as the assent of the president has not been obtained. Assent of the president is mandatory. It would, therefore, appear that the respondent-appellants though contended that the Assent of the President has been obtained but failed to produce any paper inspite of repeated adjournment granted by us as well. Accordingly, the provisions of Section 4 is ultra-vires of the Constitution. Section 4 of the Calcutta University Act 1966 has enumerated powers of the University. Clause 4 authorities to affiliate itself or to recognize colleges or institutions. Clause 10 similarly authorises the university to take over temporarily the management of the college or institution affiliated to or recognized by the University other than a government college or a government sponsored college or institution in order to ensure that proper standard of teaching, training or instructions are maintained therein. Clause (2) similarly produces that the University has authority to dissolve the governing body of any affiliated constituent or conventional college or institution other than government college or government sponsored college and bonding re-constitution of a governing body thereafter in such a manner as may be prescribed by the appointed administrator or Ad-hoc governing body. In the instant case, it appears that powers under Clauses 10 and 11 was sought to be exercised. It would appear that Clause 10 provides for temporary taking over of management. There is no question of dissolution of the governing body under Clause 10. Governing Body can be dissolved pending re-constitution of the same in the manner as may be prescribed. It would appear from the calcutta University First Ordinances, 1966, Chapter 9 that a procedure has to be followed for temporary taking over of management and opportunity has to be granted to the Governing Body of the College explaining position, and also directions has to be passed for re-constitution of the Governing Body of the college or institution or for other related matters which should be undertaken by the Governing Body with him a specified period If the Governing Body fails, then temporary taking over of the management can be made. In the instant case it would appear that no such action was taken by the Syndicate before exercising its power. An affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondents for taking note on certain documents which were property included in the paper book. We have considered those papers as well. Accordingly, we do not find any ground for our interference in this appeal. Accordingly, we do not find any reason for our interference in the considered judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Judge. As a result, this appeal fails and stands dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.