SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1988 Supreme(SC) 231

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RANGANATH MISRA AND M.M. DUTT, JJ.
Lalit Narayan Mishra Institute of Economic Development and Social Change, Patna etc., Petitioner
Versus
State of Bihar and others, Respondents.
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 55 of 1987 etc., D/- 23-3-1988.
Advocates appeared
Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee, Mr. S. N. Kacker, Mr. F. S. Nariman and R. K. Jain, Sr. Advocates, Mr. B. B. Singh, Mr. Rajit Kumar. Mr. Dhanjay Chandrachud, Mr. Rakesh Khanna. Mr. R. P. Singh and L. N. Sinha, Advocates with them, for appearing Parties.

Advocates:
B.B.Singh, DHANANJAY Y.CHANDRACHUD, F.S.NARIMAN, L.N.Sinha, R.K.JAIN, R.P.SINGH PAL, Rakesh K.Khanna, RANJIT GHOSAL, S.N.KACKAR, SOLI J.SORABJI

Headnote:PREAMBLE AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS - ALLEGATION THAT WHILE ENACTING ORDINANCES AND ACT NAMELY BIHAR PRIVATE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION (TAKING OVER) ACT THE CHIEF MINISTER ACTED MALA FIDE—EVEN ASSUMING THIS TO BE TRUE IT CANNOT VITIATE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS - REGISTRAR OF INSTITUTE COMES UNDER OTHER CATEGORIES OF STAFF AND NOT A MEMBER OF TEACHING STAFF=BEFORE TERMINATION OF SERVICE NATURAL JUSTICE DEMANDS THAT PRIOR OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING MUST BE GIVEN - TAKING OVER OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION DOES NOT AMOUNT TO TAKING OVER OF SOCIETY WHICH OWNED THE INSTITUTION —NO INFRINGEMENT OF ARTICLE 19 - BIHAR PRIVATE EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS (TAKING OVER) ACT, 1987-LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCY TO ENACT - BIHAR PRIVATE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS (TAKING OVER) ACT, 1987-LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCY TO ENACT

       -the provisions of the Constitution, particularly the provisions relating to fundamental rights, should not be construed in a pedantic manner, but should be constructed in a manner that would enable the citizens to enjoy the rights in its fullest measure. But, that does not surely mean and it was not the intention of the Supreme Court to lay down that in construing the provisions relating to fundamental rights, it should be stretched to the extent of covering even certain extraneous matters which would be far from the ambit and scope of the fundamental rights.

       -see decision in Lalit Narayan Mishra Institute of Economic Development and Social Change v. State of Bihar, AIR 1988 SC 1136.

Judgment

DUTT, J.:- In these writ petitions and civil appeals, Lalit Narayan Mishra Institute of Economic Development and Social Change, Patna, a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and its Registrar, Dr. Jagadanand Jha have challenged the constitutional validity of two Ordinances being Bihar Ordinances Nos. 15 of 1986 and 30 of 1986 replaced by the Bihar Private Educational Institutions (Taking Over) Act, 1987, hereinafter referred to as the Act. Dr. Jagadanand Jha has further challenged the validity of the order of termination of his service as the Registrar of the Institute dated April 21, 1986 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 439 of 1987. As disposal of Writ Petition (Civil) No. 431 of 1987 wherein the constitutional validity of the Act has been challenged and Writ Petition (Civil) No. 439 of 1987 in which the legality of the order of termination of service of the said Dr. Jagadanand Jha has been challenged will virtually mean disposal of the other writ petitions and appeals. we propose to deal with these two writ petitions.

2. The Institute, Lalit Narayan Mishra Institute of Economic Development and Social Change, Patna, hereafter referred to as Institute, was initially named Bihar Institute of Economic Development and was started in 1973 under the Chairmanship of Dr. Jagannath Mishra. the then Minister of Irrigation and later on the Chief Minister of Bihar. It was named as Lalit Narayan Mishra Institute of Economic Development and Social Change to commemorate the memory of late Shri Lalit Narayan Mishra, once upon a time, Union Railway Minister. It may be noticed at this stage that the name of the Institute and the name of the Society are the same.

3. The Institute was basically started as a research institute. In 1974, the Magadh University recognised the Institute for the purpose of research. Subsequently, Ranchi, Patna and Bihar Universities also granted recognition to the Institute as a research institute. In March, 1977, the Magadh University declared the Institute as an autonomous Institute under S. 73 of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1975.

4. On April 19, 1986, the State Government of Bihar promulgated Ordinance No. 15 of 1986 whereby the Institute was taken over. It is alleged that the Ordinance was promulgated and the Institute was taken over at the instance of the then Chief Minister of Bihar Sri Bindeshwari Dubey. The petitioner-Society has also alleged mala fides on the part of the Chief Minister of Bihar in taking over the Institute by promulgating the Ordinance. On the day the Ordinance was promulgated, possession of the Institute was taken, and the services of Dr. Jagadanand Jha, who was the Registrar of the Institute were terminated by the impugned order dated April. 21, 1986. Besides contending that the Ordinance and the order of termination of the petitioner Dr. Jagadanand Jha are illegal and invalid, the petitioner-Society and the said Jagadanand Jha allege that all these have happened because of the personal enmity of the Chief Minister against Dr. Jagannath Mishra, the Chairman of the Society and the Institute.

5. The petitioners filed writ petitions before the Patna High Court challenging the validity of the said Ordinance No. 15 of 1986 and the order of termination of services of Dr. Jagadanand Jha. The Patna High Court, however, by its judgment dated August 26, 1986 dismissed both the writ petitions. Both the Society and Dr. Jagadanand Jha have preferred two appeals by special leave being Civil Appeal No. 4142 of 1986 and Civil Appeal No. 4141 of 1986 respectively against the said judgment of the Patna High Court. The Society and Dr. Jagadanand Jha have also challenged the Ordinance No. 30 of 1986 by Writ Petition (Civil) No. 55 of 1987 and, as stated already, they have also challenged the constitutional validity of the Act replacing these Ordinances.

6. At this stage, it is necessary to refer to the provisions of the Act which are the same as that of the two successive Ordina
































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top