GIRISH CHANDRA JANA Vs. KALIPADA BARIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule obtained by the owner of certain plots of land is directed against an order by which a Bhdgchds Board found, the Petitioner's case that he had advanced a certain quantity of paddy to the bargdddr to be untrue and apportioned the paddy according to law.

(2.) Mr. Mullick, on behalf of the Petitioner, argues that the owner produced before the Board a set of accounts, but then he is constrained to admit that the owner does not appear to have taken any steps to prove the accounts. The more production of the accounts is no proof thereof and in the absence of any proof of the accounts, the Board was not. entitled to consider the same. Besides, the Petitioner does not appear to have taken any receipt from the bargdddr when he advanced paddy to him. In the absence of any such receipt the Board was bound to come to the conclusion that this story of the owner that he advanced certain quantity of paddy to the bargdddr was untrue. Thus, on the merits the Board appears to have taken a correct view of the matter and the Appellate Officer also was justified in confirming that view.

(3.) Mr. Mullick, however, on behalf of the Petitioner, raises a point of law which is of a somewhat fundamental nature. The order of the Board appears to have been signed by three members thereof and Mr. Mullick's contention is that this is done under Rule 8, Sub-rule (1) under which the quorum necessary for the meeting of a Board for the transaction of a business shall be three, provided that the presence of the chairman shall be necessary for constituting the quorum of the Board. The Rule itself is, according to Mr. Mullick, ultra vires the Act, for in the first place Section 6 of the West Bengal bargdddrs Act lays down clearly that every Board shall consist of a chairman and four other members and that under Section 7 every dispute shall be decided by a Board. There is, according to Mr. Mallick, nothing in the Act to suggest that the State Government was empowered to frame any rule regarding the formation of a quorum so as to whittle down the provisions of the Act. In order to see whether this contention is correct or not, certain provisions of the Act have to be examined carefully. Section 6, Sub-section (2) provides that every Board shall consist of a Chairman who shall be a person in the service of the Government and four other members, two of whom shall be the representatives of the bargdddrs cultivating lands situated in the local area for which the Board has been established and the other two shall be the representatives of the owners of lands cultivated by such bargdddrs. Clearly, therefore, in the formation of the Board apart from an impartial chairman there are two representatives of the bargdddrs and two representatives of the owners, and these five together constitute a Board under the West Bengal Bargdddr Act, 1950. Of course, Sub-section (4) of Section 6 provides that the State Government may, at any time, cancel, by notification, the appointment of the chairman or of any other member of a Board or dissolve any Board stating the reasons for such dissolution in the notification and then there is a proviso to this Sub-section under which when a Board is dissolved and the State Government does not consider the appointment of another Board to be necessary or desirable, it may authorise any person in the service of Government to exercise all or any of the powers of the Board, as it thinks fit. From these two provisions Mr. Panda, on behalf of the opposite party, argues that the Board, when the appointment of one or more members of the Board has been cancelled by the State Government, could function with a number of members less than five and that it was possible for one man to function as a Board under the proviso to Sub-section (4). Mr. Panda, however, ignores the fact that where under Sub-section (4) the State Government cancels the appointment of one or more members, it would be bound under the requirements of Sub-section (2) which provides, as already stated, that the Board shall consist of five members to fill up the vacancy or vacancies caused by the cancellation of appointment of one or more members, so that although Sub-section (4) itself does not provide for the filling up of such vacancies, the provision for the filling up of such vacancies is inherent in the provision of Sub-section (2) under which the Board is to consist of five members. In the event of the Board being dissolved, the powers of the Board are exercisable by one man in the service of the Government who may be authorised by the State Government. That does not mean that so long as the Board is in existence, it can consist of less than five members. Section 7, Sub-section (1) also provides that every dispute between a bargadar and an owner as regards certain matters specified in the section shall be decided by a Board established for the local area within which such land is situated. So far there is no indication in the Act that the Board can function as a Board with a number of members less than five. The only provision of the Act which is relevant for this purpose is Section 19 which authorises the State Government to make rules. Sub-section (1) of Section 19 entitles the State Government to make rules to carry out the purposes of this Act and then Sub-section (2) provides that in particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters enumerated in six clauses out of which we are concerned with only two, namely, (d) and (f):