MAHENDRA CHANDRA SINGH Vs. BASANTA NUNIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision is directed against an Order dated 4.6 1980 passed by the Executive Magistrate, Silchar in Case No. 90 M of 1980, making a final order under Sec. 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code prohibiting the petitioner from entering into the school premises, the subject matter of the proceedings.

(2.) The opposite party instituted a suit for declaration of his status as the Head master of the school in question and for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from functioning as the Head Master of the school. The opposite party obtained an ad-interim injunction. However, upon hearing both the parties and taking into consideration the relevant materials learned Munsiff vacated the order of injunction. It will thus be seen that the first-party/opposite party having failed to obtain a legal order injunction the petitioner from functioning as the Head Master of the School took resort to proceedings under Sec. 144 of the Cr.P.C. He filed an application stating that the petitioner had no authority to enter the school but he did so. The second party/petitioner, it was alleged, directed the plucked students of Classes VIII, IX & X etc. to have their seats in the next higher. This action of the Head Master in asking the plucked students to the next higher classes created apprehension of a breach of peace.

(3.) There is no doubt that at all relevant time the petitioner acted as the Head Master of the School. He allowed, it is alleged, the unsuccessful students to sit in. the Text higher classes. This act was the root cause for taking action under sec. 144 Cr.P.C. According to the learned Magistrate it created serious apprehension and breach of peace. Learned Magistrate was fully aware that the first party/opposite party had instituted a .title suit claiming himself as the Head Master pf the school, an 1 prohibiting the petitioner, who was the Head Master, from discharging his functions as the Head Master. It is seen that the Civil Court having restrained the petitioner to function as the Head Master vacated, the stay order. The effect of vacation of the injunction was to enable the petitioner to function as the Head Master of the school. However, the Criminal Court made the order of the Civil Court nugatory by passing an the impugned order and directing the petitioner, Head. Master of the school, not to enter the school premises. At all relevant time, the, petitioner was the Head Master. In that capacity he had a legal right to enter the school and, impart education as well as exercise his powers and functions. If any of the powers excised ,was against the discipline of the School, the School authority was the competent authority to deal with it and take necessary action. As such, the impugned order, on the face of it appears to be illegal and without jurisdiction.