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

1973 Supreme(Cal) 8

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
N. C. Talukdar
SATYA NARAYAN MAITY - Appellant
Versus
SUNIRMALENDU MAITY - Respondent
Civil Revn. Case 3570  Of  1972
Decided On : JANUARY 08, 1973

Advocates Appeared:
JAMINI KUMAR BANERJEE, SWADESH BHUSAN BHUNIA

The principle of audi alteram partem requires that a person should be given an opportunity to be heard before a decision is made that affects their rights.

Headnote:

INJUNCTION - DOCUMENTS AND MATERIALS - DELIVERY - PROCEDURE - NATURAL JUSTICE - AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM - MANDATORY INJUNCTION - ORDER 39, RULE 1 (2) - SECTION 151, C. P. C. - WEST BENGAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT, 1963 (WEST BENGAL ACT V OF 1963), SECTION 22 (4) - RULES FOR MANAGEMENT OF RECOGNISED NON-GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION (AIDED AND UNAIDED), 1969, RULE 28 (1) (II), RULE 28 (8).

Fact of the Case:

The defendant, the permanent Head Master of a school, was suspended by the Managing Committee and directed to make over charge to the Secretary. The plaintiff, the Officiating Head Master, filed a suit for permanent injunction and a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from entering the school compound and interfering with the plaintiff's function. The plaintiff also filed an application for a direction on the defendant to hand over the documents mentioned in the Schedule of the petition on the ground that those were kept under lock and key, in violation of the order of injunction.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the defendant was denied an opportunity to file an objection to the plaintiff's third application, which was filed on the date fixed for the hearing of the original application, and that the court failed to consider a material document, being Memo. No. 1433 dated 30-5-72 from the District Inspector of Schools (S. E.), Midnapore informing the Sub-Divisional Officer, Contai, that the plaintiff is not recognised by the Department as the Officiating Head Master and instructing the Sub-Divisional Officer, Contai, to preserve the papers of the School under lock and key as before, pending the appointment of an administrator to take charge of the records with the help of the police.

Issues: 1. Whether the defendant was denied an opportunity to file an objection to the plaintiff's third application, which was filed on the date fixed for the hearing of the original application? 2. Whether the court failed to consider a material document, being Memo. No. 1433 dated 30-5-72 from the District Inspector of Schools (S. E.), Midnapore informing the Sub-Divisional Officer, Contai, that the plaintiff is not recognised by the Department as the Officiating Head Master and instructing the Sub-Divisional Officer, Contai, to preserve the papers of the School under lock and key as before, pending the appointment of an administrator to take charge of the records with the help of the police?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The principle of audi alteram partem (hear the other side) requires that a person should be given an opportunity to be heard before a decision is made that affects their rights. 2. The court's failure to give the defendant an opportunity to file an objection to the plaintiff's third application and its failure to consider a material document resulted in a contravention of the principles of natural justice and a non-conformance to the procedure established by law.

Final Decision: The court set aside the order of the lower court and remanded the three applications to the court below for being disposed of on merits, in accordance with Law and expeditiously by the learned Munsif. First Court, Contai, after giving due opportunity to the defendant-netitioner of being properly heard by filing his objection to the plaintiff's application dated 10-11-72 and on a consideration of the Memo. No. 1433 dated 30-5-72 sent by the District Inspector of Schools (Secondary Education), Midnapore to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Contai.

N. C. TALUKDAR, J.

( 1 ) THE defendant is the petitioner in this Rule which is directed against an order dated 14-11-72 passed by Shri A. C. Acharyya, Munsif, First Court, Contai in Title Suit No. 88 of 1972, allowing the plaintiff-opposite party's prayer and directing the defendant-petitioner to unlock and make over the documents and materials kept under lock and key, as mentioned in the petition, upon receipt and in presence of the lawyers of both the sides.

( 2 ) THE facts leading on to the Rule can be put in a short compass. A dispute arose between the defendant, Shri Satya Narayan Maity, stated to be the permanent Head Master of the Halud-Bari High School, and the Managing Committee thereof. The Managing Committee by a resolution dated 1-3-72 issued a charge-sheet against the defendant, suspending him and directing him to make over charge to the Secretary. The plaintiff, Shri Sunirmalendu Maity, stated to be the Officiating Head Master, filed a suit, being Title Suit No. 88 of 1972, in the Court of the learned Munsif, First Court, Contai for permanent injunction and also applied for a temporary injunction therein for restraining the latter from entering the school compound and interfering with the function of the plaintiff. An objection was filed by the defendant but ultimately on 18-4-72, the learned Mun-sif passed an order for temporary injunction. On 25-9-72 an application was filed by the plaintiff praying for a direction on the defendant to hand over the documents mentioned in the Schedule of the petition on the ground 'that those were kept under lock and key, in violation of the order of injunction. An objection was filed on 30-9-72 by the defendant, stating inter alia that the room locked by him was further locked by the Secretary on 8-3-72, before the institution of the suit; and that the District Inspector of Schools (Secondary Education), Midnapore by his Memo. No. 1433 dated 30-5-72 had informed the Sub-divisional Officer, Contai that the plaintiff is not recognised by the Department as the Officiating Head Master and instructed him to preserve the papers of the school under lock and key as before, till the appointment of an administrator, who will take over charge of the papers with police help. A second application was filed in this behalf by the plaintiff on 3-10-72 and this was also objected to on merits. An application was also filed by the defendant with a prayer to call for the Memo. No. 1433 dated 30-5-72 from the Court of the Sub-Divisional Olficer for a proper decision in the matter. The prayer was allowed and the Memo. No. 1433 was called for on 10-11-72. A third application followed on 10-11-72, which was the date fixed for the hearing of the original application, adding to and supplementing the original applications filed on 25-9-72 and 3-10-72. No opportunity however was given, though prayed for, to the defendant to file his objection to this third petition and ultimately on 14-11-72 the learned Munsif allowed the prayer of the plaintiff. This order has been impugned by the defendant and forms the subject-matter of the present Rule. An ad interim stay of operation of the order was granted but further proceedings in the Title Suit were not stayed. An Affidavit-in-Opposi-tion, affirmed on 18-12-72 and an Affidavit-in-Reply thereto, affirmed on 22-12-72, were filed by the respective parties.

( 3 ) THE contentions of Mr. Swadesh Bhusan Bhunia, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the defendant-petitioner are broadly two-fold -- the first head relating to a contravention of the principles of natural justice and of procedure; and the second one relating to merits. Mr. Bhu-nia's contentions catalogued under the first head are : (a) Denial of an opportunity, though prayed for specifically on 10-11-72 by the defendant-petitioner, to file an objection to the third application filed by the plaintiff-opposite party; (b) Non-consideration of a material document, although specifically called for and produced at










Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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