SASHI BHUSAN RAY Vs. PRAMATHA NATH BANDOPADHYAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Sashi Bhushan Ray, obtained this Rule requiring the respondents to show cause as to why a writ of or in the nature of Quo Warranto should not be issued commanding respondent No. 1 Pramatha Nath Bandopadhyay to exhibit before this Court by what authority he pretends to hold or to continue to hold the public offices, to wit, the office of the Principal or a whole-time Professor or a member of the Teaching Staff of the University College of Law, or the office of the Vice President and Secretary of the Council of the University College of Law, or the office of a member of Board of Trustees for the University Law College Building Fund, or the office of a University Professor or Teacher, or the office of a member of the Senate or the Syndicate or the Academic Council of the University of Calcutta or the office of the Head of the Department of the Post Graduate Teaching in Law or of the Chairman of the Board of Studies in Law under the Faculty of Law, in or under the University of Calcutta. The Rule also directed the respondents to show cause as to why a writ of or in the nature of Mandamus should not be issued commanding the respondent No. 1 to forbear from receiving or realizing or drawing from the University Fund any remuneration or emoluments or other sum of money on account of or in the relation to such offices as aforesaid and to act according to the law. The Rule also required the respondents to show cause as to why a Writ of or in the nature of Mandamus should not be issued commanding the respondent No. 1 to refund to the University Fund of the University of Calcutta all such remunerations, emoluments and other sums of money received or realised or drawn by him on account of or in relation to such offices since and after his attainment of the age of 65 years. The Rule further directed the respondents to show cause as to why respondents Nos.2 to 11 should not be commanded to forbear from permitting the respondent No.1 to hold or to function as the holder of any of the aforesaid offices and further to show cause as to why a Writ of Mandamus should not be issued commanding respondents Nos. 2 to 11 to forbear from paying any remuneration, emolument or other sums in relation to such offices to the respondent No. 1. The respondents Nos. 2 to 11 were further directed by the rule to show cause as to why they should not be commanded to realise from respondent No. 1 all remunerations, emoluments and other sums received or realised or drawn by him from out of the University Fund since and after his attainment of the age of 65 years. The respondents were also required to show cause as to why a writ of Mandamus should not be issued commanding respondents Nos.12 and 13 to audit the accounts of the University College of Law as part of the annual accounts of the University of Calcutta.

(2.) The petitioner is by occupation a medical practitioner and in paragraph 18 of the petition, the petitioner is described as a registered Graduate of the University of Calcutta who has paid his subscriptions and is, as such, qualified elector to elect members of the Senate of the University, and is interested in the due and proper administration of the affairs of the University and in the due and proper application of the University Fund constituted by and under Section 49 of the Calcutta University Act, 1951.

(3.) The respondents are 13 in number. The first respondent is Pramatha Nath Bandopadhyay. The respondents Nos. 2 to 11 are the University of Calcutta, the Senate, the Syndicate, the Academic Council, the Chancellor, the Vice Chancellor, the Treasurer, the Finance Committee, the Dean of the Faculty of Law and the Council of the University College of Law respectively. The respondent No. 12 is the State of West Bengal. Respondent No. 13 is the Accountant-General of West Bengal.