CHAITANYA PRAKASH Vs. BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATIONRAJASTHANJAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The case set out by the petitioner in his petition is that he carried on business in the name of Messrs. Jai Ambey Pustak Bhandar at Jaipur of publishing educational books for schools and colleges in Rajasthan. It is alleged that the petitioner being desirous of submitting the books for courses of study prescribed by the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan (hereinafter called 'the Board') got himself registered under Regulation 16(1) of the Rajasthan Secondary Education Regulations, 1957, (hereinafter called 'the Regulations') framed under the Rajasthan Secondary Education Act, 1957, (hereinafter called 'the Act') Under Registration Certificate dated the 14th of October, 1958. This registration was valid for a period of five years from June, 1958 to June, 1963. On the 30th of July, 1959, the petitioner presented 21 books to the Board for approval for study in various subjects in the Higher Secondary Schools in the year 1963 and the High Schools in the year 1962. According to the petitioner, the books submitted by him should have been made over to the Courses Committee for the respective subjects, but the petitioner received from the Board an intimation by letter dated the 3rd of September, 1957 that the petitioner's registration with the respondent had been cancelled and the books submitted by the petitioner would not be considered by the Courses Committee for a period of three years. The petitioner has challenged the cancellation of registration on the ground that it was valid for a period of five years and the Board was not authorized under law to cancel it for any of the reasons mentioned in the said letter. The petitioner further challenges the correctness of the facts mentioned in that letter. The petitioner has urged that under the circumstances the action of the Board in refusing the books of the petitioner, amounted to interference with the petitioner's trade and infringes the petitioner's fundamental right to carry on business guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution.

(2.) The Board contested the writ petition and in the reply filed by it admitted that the petitioner had registered himself with the Board as publishers of educational books for schools and colleges in Rajasthan and asserted that the Board had every right to cancel the registration and that the publisher was not fair in his dealings with the Board and had not carried out the undertakings given by him. Some facts are set out in the reply showing how the petitioner has acted unfairly with the Board in respect of certain matters. Briefly, they disclose that the petitioner over-charged for two books namely, (1) Manav Samaj ke vikas ki roop rekha and (2) Nutan Samanya Vigyan from the purchasers against their prices which had been approved by the Board and complaint to that effect had been received by the Board. It is further stated that so far as the Manav Samaj ki roop rekha was concerned, the petitioner admitted that a higher price had been charged by mistake. It is also stated that even in spite of the assurance given by the petitioner that he would in future charge the price approved by the Board, he continued to sell the books at higher prices and failed to give any satisfactory explanation. It is also stated that the Board had received a letter dated the 3rd of March, 1959 from the Government of Rajasthan in which the said Government had also complained that the firm was not fair in its dealings in the matter of purchases made by the Government. It is further stated that of the books submitted by the petitioner on the 30th of July, 1959, the petitioner purported to submit a book 'Pratinidhi Yatrion ki lekhni se', but in fact it was only the cover which bore that title and inside there was another book and he further gave wrong particulars about the number of pages of that book. The office detected this and the said book was not submitted to the members of the Courses Committee but the petitioner somehow or the other managed to supply the members of the Committee with the copies of the said book. The Secretary of the Board brought this matter to the notice of the said committee in the meetings of the Committee of Courses held on the 20th, 21st and 22nd of November, 1958. The committee thereupon decided that the book may not be considered and left the matter of the irregularity to be dealt with by the Secretary of the Board. This matter was also considered by the Curriculum Committee under the president ship of Shri G. C. Chatterjee, the Chairman of the Board and that committee requested the chairman to make an inquiry as to how a book which was not amongst the books placed for consideration, was brought into the meeting of the committee and found on the table. Thereupon the Chairman of the respondent Board, appointed a committee on the 12th of April, 1959 consisting of three members to review the registration of the petitioner and the other complaints made against him. The said committee submitted a report and was of the opinion that the registration of Messrs. Jai Ambey Prakashan Bhandar should be cancelled for three years and no book from this firm should be accepted for consideration of the Board. In the meeting of the Board held on the 29th of July, 1959, it was resolved that the registration of Messrs. Jai Ambey Prakashan Bhandar be cancelled for three years and no book from this firm be accepted for consideration by the Board, and in pursuance of that resolution the registration was cancelled and the petitioner was informed of it. It is urged that the Board was an autonomous institution and this Court should not interfere with its working. A rejoinder was filed by the petitioner in which it was sought to explain the various allegations made by the Board against the petitioner in the reply filed by it. It is not necessary at this stage to give in detail the contentions raised by the petitioner in the rejoinder and the facts alleged by him in it.

(3.) Shri B. P. Beri on behalf of the petitioner during the course of arguments not only urged that the fundamental right of the petitioner to carry on his business was infringed by the Board, but also tried to reinforce the case of the petitioner by urging that in the matter of cancellation of the registration of the petitioner, the Board was acting as a quasi-judicial body and inasmuch as the Board took the decision of cancellation without reference to the petitioner and without affording an opportunity to explain his position, it violated the principles of natural justice and this Court should set aside the cancellation of registration on this ground. It was also urged that under the regulations, the registration could be cancelled only for canvassing by the publishing of authors for their books and not for any other ground and as the cancellation of the registration in the case of the petitioner had been done for reasons other than canvassing the Board had contravened the regulations and it should be directed by a writ of mandamus to revoke the cancellation so made. An argument was also urged on the basis of Regulation 23 that the Board could cancel the registration only in case the Committee of Courses had definitely given such a report with respect to the matter in question. It was also urged that the Board had acted mala fide.