SHAMBHU NATH ROY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions have been, heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment as the subject matter of dispute is the same in both of them.

(2.) C.W.J.C. No. 803 of 1995 (R) has been filed by Sambhu Nath Roy, professedly, in public interest complaining of mismanagement of the affairs of Chotanagpur Law College (hereinafter referred to as 'the college') and misappropriation of its funds by respondent No. 7. Basant Kumar Lal as its Secretary during the period 1986-92. He has sought direction to the State of Bihar and the Ranchi University to take steps for take over of the college, as a constituent unit of the University, and in the meantime, grant permanent affiliation to it. He also wants that steps should be taken to improve the financial condition of the college and its management and administration be carried on by a Committee, in the meantime. C.W.J.C. No. 1139 of 1995 (R) has been filed by the said Basant Kumar Lal (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner') for quashing a letter of the Registrar, Ranchi University dated 27.4.1994, Annexure-19 to the writ petition, communicating the formation of governing body for the college.

(3.) There is dispute as to whether by reason of the aforesaid letter dated 27.4.1994 the formation of the governing body is complete or not and whether the University was at all competent to do so. But so far as C.W.J.C. No. 803 of 1995 (R) is concerned, that part of the grievance stands redressed. As regards taking over the college as a constituent unit of the University, it must be said in fairness to Mr. A. Allam, learned Counsel for the petitioner of that writ petition that in view of the constraints on the exercise of the power in issuing any mandamus of that nature in writ jurisdiction as also the stand taken by the University that it has already recommended taking over of the college to the State Government, he did not press the aforesaid reliefs. He did mention about the financial irregularities but I do not want to go into that question in this writ petition. It appears, after its accounts were audited an F.I.R. has been lodged on the basis of the audit report which is pending investigation. Although a good deal of argument has been made as to the background in which the audit was made and also the competency of the Auditor and the correctness of his report I do not think it would be proper to go into that aspect of the matter on account of pendency of the police investigation.