BHAGWAT AZAD Vs. LALIT NARAYAN MITHILA UNIVERSITY DARBHANGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is for quashing the letter/ order dated 5-4-1989 (Annexure-8) by which the Registrar, Lalit Narain Mithila University has constituted a new ad-hoc committee for governance of Bhagwati Mandir College, Katihar superseding the earlier ad-hoc committee constituted on 17-9-1987 of which the petitioner was the sponsor-convenor which, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner is violative of the direction of the Chancellor dated 15th April, 1988 (Annexure-9) as also a Division Bench decision of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 5829 of 1986 disposed of on 20th May, 1988.

(2.) Mr. Basudeo Prasad, senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the College was established by a big donation of Bhagwati Mandir Trust Committee in the backward area of Katihar and the college was being governed by Bhagwati Mandir Trust Committee. Subsequently, a Governing Body of 15 members including the petitioner was constituted sometime in the year 1982. The college came to possess 65 acres of land and a good liberty and sufficient number of teachers for imparting education. The college was affiliated with University sometime in the year 1987 after due inspection by the University authorities upto B. A. and B. Com pass course. It is said that the petitioner asked the University to constitute a governing body, but the University instead of constituting a governing body, constituted an ad-hoc committee as step in aid to the constitution of a regular governing body, in June 1987 of which the writ petitioner was the sponsor convenor member. Curiously, according to the learned counsel, for no valid reason instead of constituting a regular governing body, new ad-hoc committee was substituted on 5-4-1989 by dropping the petitioner as a member of the said committee. In that new ad-hoc committee a social worker and a professor incharge of the college were included by giving ago by to the donor member and/or the sponsor of the College. It has been averred that this has been done without any valid reason or cause, even though the old ad-hoc committee was functioning satisfactorily and has brought about great progress of the college.

(3.) A counter-affidavit has been filed both on behalf of respondent No. 4, the University as well as by respondent no. 5 Sri Jai Kishun Yadav, who claims to be the donor of Rs. 51,000/- in the formation of the college'. In his counter-affidavit respondent no. 5 has alleged many acts of omission and commission on the part of the petitioner so much so as a Secretary of the committee he was keeping the college fund in his personal account. It has also been averred that he was acting to the detriment of the interest of the college and there was a general murmur by the prominent citizens of the place. It has further been stated that since 15-11-1986 the petitioner has never worked even for a single day as a Secretary of the college as in the proceeding of the meeting held on 15-11-1986 he was removed by the general body. Upto 29-6-1987 the college was being run by the governing body of which the petitioner was neither a member nor a Secretary, but surreptitiously the petitioner wrote a letter describing himself as a Secretary for the comtitu- tion of an ad-hoc committee of the college after its affiliation, Eeven though he knew that on 29-6-1987 he was not the Secretary of the college, and the University without examining the matter and/or noticing the new governing body constituted an ad-hoc committee of which the petitioner was made the convenor. When this fact was known to the people and the other members of the staff, there was a great resentment, because a person, who had been removed by the governing body from the post of Secretary for his omission and commission including misappropriation of college fund had been included as a member of the ad-hoc committee by the University in exercise of the power conferred under Section 60 (4) of the Bihar State Universities Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). On a representation filed, the University got the matter examined and the affairs of the college inspected. An Additional Collector after having authorised by the District Magistrate Katihar, also enquired into the allegation against the petitioner. An elaborate inspection report was submitted by the University representative on 7-2-1989 who suggested that the ad-hoc committee of which the petitioner was made the convenor be replaced because of allegations of grave nature against him which were prima facie found to be true. The University after considering of the said report constituted a new ad-hoc committee till the regular governing body is properly constituted.