PIJUS DAS GUPTA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this application under Article 226 of the Constitution the subject matter of challenge is the Netaji Nagar College (Taking over of Management) Act, 1978 and certain consequential actions in respect thereof The petitioners are six in number. The first petitioner claims to be the Principal, Joint secretary of First Governing body (Provisional), Secretary (of injuncted governing Body), President of Staff Provident Fund Committee of the said College, the second petitioner is the former vice-Chancellor Jadavpur University, president (of injuncted Governing Body), Netaji Nagar College, the third petitioner is the Professor of Sociology, calcutta University and a nominee of the Calcutta University on the (Injuncted) Governing Body, the fourth and fifth petitioners are the donors, Swadesh Datta and Sudhin Sarkar and the sixth petitioner is one Probodh Chandra Gupta, who claims to be the President ct the Netaji Nagar College Guardians, and Benefactors' Association. As I mentioned before, the subject matter of challenge is the Act referred to hereinbefore and certain consequential actions taken pursuant thereto. Before I deal with this challenge, it is necessary to refer, in brief, to certain facts.

(2.) THE petitioners claim that in may, 1967 a provisional Governing Body of the College was set up. In September 1967, the University, according to the petitioners, granted affiliation in B. Com Pass Course (Evening Class) and Pre-University Course (Evening Class) and the petitioner no. 1 was appointed, so he claims, as the professor-in-Charge on the 2nd September, 1967. It is also the case of the petitioners that the University inspection Team headed by Dr. P. K. Bose, the then Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Academic affairs) recommended , for a duly qualified Principal and for his appointment as ex-officio Joint Secretary to the government Body. The petitioner no. 1 was appointed the Principal and Ex-officio secretary, in July, 1968. The University, according to the petitioners, on the 9th September, 1988 approved the appointed of the petitioner no. 1 as principal and Other teachers. The other facts are not very material for considering me question before me. I may, however, refer to certain facts after June, 1969 when certain disputes arose between the petitioners and the respondent no. 5, who is now a member or the west Bengal Cabinet asserting that there was a Trust Deed of Which he was a setter and himself and four persons including the petitioner no. 1 were trustees and the same was and reconstitution of the provisional Government Body, as retuned under Clause 93 of the first Statute was not applicable there were various correspondence, to when again it is not necessary for me to refer. it appears that the disputes continued and mere were certain incidents to when the petitioners have referred to in the petition and there was an allegation that the respondent no. 5 did something about Keeping the cheque books with which, as I said, I am not concerned. On the 17th April, 1975, an application was moved under Article 226 of the constituents in. this court and Mr. Justice Janah made an order where by he vacate a the interim order which was previously granted by him at the time of issue of the Rule Nisi in that case. The matter went up before the Division Bench in appeal. As one of contenting urged in this case among others on the order passed by this court, was on the effect, or the Act, it would be necessary to refer to that order in certain extent. Mr. justice M. Dutta delivering the decision of the Division Bench in the appeal from Original Order No. 536 of 1975 on the 11th June, 1975 after seating out the history of that case stated that disputes between the parties related to the constitution and re-constitution of me Governing Body of the College known as Netaji Nagar College. His Lordship had ser out the history and referred to the assertion of a trust deed and thereafter observed that the appellant, who was respondent no. 5 as well as the petitioner no. 1 had asserted that the College was being managed by a Trust created by me Trust Deed and in that view Cause 100 (1) of the First Statute of the University would be applicable. The University of Calcutta on the other and had insisted, that the Trust was created after the commencement of the Statute and the Governing Body should be re-constituted in accordance with Clause 93 (1) of the said Statue. His Lordship had set out the assertions of the claim as and submissions made on behalf of the parties and thereafter the Division Bench ordered, inter aria as follows :

(3.) BEFORE I refer to the challenge, it is necessary to refer to certain provisions of the Act. The preamble to the said Act which received the assent of the President and was published in the Calcutta Gazette on the 28th March, 1978 stated :