DIPENDRA NATH SARKAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the petitioner is the Joint Secretary of the Bankipur Brahma Samaj (hereinafter referred to as ("the Samaj") and has been authorised by a resolution dated the 28th January, 1961, passed by the Samaj. to make this application. The claim of the petitioner is that the Samaj is a minority community based on religion and that the Samaj had established a school for girls in Patna in 1930 known as Balika Vidyalaya, For the year 1960-61 the Samaj appointed a Managing Committee for the School with Sri J. Kundu, Advocate, as its Secretary. Respondent No. 4, who was the Acting Secretary of the Managing Committee, refused to hand over charge of the school to the new Secretary, Sri J. Kundu. It appears that respondent No. 4 sought the direction of the Education Department of the Government of Bihar and also the Board of Secondary Education. On the 11th April, 1960, respondent No. 3 wrote a letter to the petitioner, which is annexure C to the application and reads as follows: "No. 7863-64. From The Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna To The District Inspectress of Schools. Dated Patna, the 11th April, 1960. Subject: The Managing Committee of the Balika Vidyalaya, Kadam Kuan, Patna. Madam, It appears from the letter of the Acting Secretary of the aforesaid High School on the subject noted above that the Brahmo Samaj has formed a new Managing Committee for this year but I am to inform you that the Bankipur Brahmo Samaj has no authority to constitute the Managing Committee in view of the Government Resolution faying down rules regarding management of High Schools. Therefore, until the Managing Committee is reconstituted according to the rules contained in the Government Resolution till then the existing Managing Committee will continue to function and its President Mr. Justice Ujjal Narain Sinha and the Acting Secretary Dr. Gopi Krishna Kohli will remain and continue in their office. Yours faithfully, Sd. J. Saran. Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna." Against this order of respondent No. 3 the petitioner moved the High Court for grant of a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution. The application was numbered as Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 358 of 1960 and was allowed by the High Court on the 8th November, 1960. The operative portion of the judgment of the High Court reads as follows:

(2.) On the 17th November, 1960, respondent No. 3 addressed a letter to the Inspectress of Schools which is annexure D to the application." In that letter respondent No. 3 informed the Inspectress of Schools that the previous letter of the Board, dated the 11th April, 1960, should be deemed as cancelled. On the 29th November, 1960, the petitioner informed respondent No. 4 that he would go to the School on the 1st December, 1960, along with Sri Kundu, for taking charge of the school. In accordance with that letter the petitioner and Sri Kundu went to the School at 11 a.m. on the 1st December, 1960, but respondent Nos. 4 and 12 flatly refused to handover charge of the school staging that they were not parties to the writ application.

(3.) The petitioner has now obtained a rule from the High Court calling upon the respondents to show cause why they should not be committees for contempt. Cause has been shown by the learned Government Advocate on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and 14 and by Mr. Jaleshwar Prasad on behalf of respondents Nos. 4 to 13.