KIRPAL SINGH JOLLY Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN exercise of his power under Section 145 (1) of the old Code of Criminal Procedure, the Additional District Magistrate, Ludhiana on 15th February, 1974, passed an order against Joginder Singh Grewal and five others (mentioned as first party therein) and Jagjit Singh and seven others (mentioned as second party therein ). The parties were called upon to put in written statements of their respective claims as to the actual possession of the Govind National College, Narangwal. In his order the Additional District Magistrate expressed the view that a dispute concerning building and running of the college likely to cause a breach of the peace existed between the parties. The order was followed by attachment of the subject of dispute and the appointment of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ludhiana, as Receiver-cum-Administrator of the college. Kirpal Singh Jolly, formerly Principal of the college, has moved this Court for quashing the proceedings.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the State and the second party have challenged the locus standi of Kirpal Singh Jolly petitioner. On behalf of the petitioner, it was contended that the college abovesaid was founded in the year 1966 under the private trust, viz. , 'patna Sahib Education Trust', having a Managing Committee. The persons constituting the first party are members of the Managing Committee. By virtue of Clause (4) of the Trust Deed, the Principal of the college is an ex officio member of the Managing Committee. Besides, the college is affiliated to the Punjab University. Regulation No. 8, Chapter 8-A of the Punjab University Calendar, Volume I (1973) provides that the governing body of an institution shall include the Principal as an ex officio member. Above all, contended the learned Counsel that the petitioner was Principal of the college when it was taken over by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ludhiana. Later, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate terminated his services. As such, he (the petitioner) is an aggrieved person. For the foregoing reasons, I overrule the objection as to the locus standi of the petitioner.

(3.) THE vital question to be decided is : Whether the present case is covered by Section 145 of the old Criminal Procedure Code. In support of his contention that it is not, learned Counsel for the petitioner referred to the following provisions of Section 145. Sub-section (1) provides that whenever a District Magistrate is satisfied that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace exists concerning "any land or water or the boundaries thereof", he shall make an order in writing in accordance with the requirements of the section. Sub-section (2) enacts that the expression 'land or water' includes buildings, markets, fisheries, crops or other produce of land, and the rents or profits of any such property. Sub-section (4) lays down that if the Magistrate considers the case one of emergency, he may at any time attach the subject of dispute. Sub-section (8) is in the following terms: