HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Bose
AMARENDRA CHANDRA - Appellant
Versus
NARENDRA KUMAR BASU - Respondent
Civil Rule 3185 Of 1951
Decided On : MARCH 28, 1952
QUO WARRANTO - OFFICES OF PUBLIC NATURE - WRIT NOT MAINTAINABLE FOR OFFICES NOT CREATED BY STATUTE OR CHARTER - CHAKRABERIA HIGH SCHOOL MANAGING COMMITTEE - NOT AN OFFICE OF PUBLIC NATURE - APPROVAL OF UNIVERSITY NOT A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO FUNCTIONING OF MANAGING COMMITTEE - APPROVAL GRANTED BY UNIVERSITY - NOT INVALIDATED BY SUBSEQUENT DISCOVERY OF DEFECTS - UNIVERSITY NOT MADE A PARTY - PETITION NOT MAINTAINABLE.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, father of two students of Chakraberia High School, challenged the authority of the respondents to act as members of the school's Managing Committee, alleging that their approval by the University was invalid under Rule 6 of the Revised School Code.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the offices held by the respondents were not offices of a public nature and thus not subject to a writ of quo warranto. The approval granted by the University was not a condition precedent to the Managing Committee functioning, and even if it was defective, it did not invalidate the respondents' right to be in office.
Issues: 1. Whether the offices held by the respondents were offices of a public nature, subject to a writ of quo warranto? 2. Whether the approval granted by the University was a condition precedent to the Managing Committee functioning? 3. Whether the approval granted by the University was invalid due to lack of materials or grounds?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on Halsbury's Laws of England and case law to establish that a writ of quo warranto lies only for offices of a public and substantive nature created by or under a statute or charter granted by the Crown. 2. The court found that the Chakraberia High School Managing Committee was not created by any statute but by the General Committee of the South Suburban School, and thus not subject to a writ of quo warranto. 3. The court held that the approval granted by the University was not a condition precedent to the Managing Committee functioning, as per Circular No. s/355/ M. C. of the Revised School Code.
Final Decision: The court discharged the rule and dismissed the petition, ordering the petitioner to pay the costs of the proceedings.
( 1 ) THIS is an application under Atricle 226 of the Constitution for a Writ in the nature of 'quo Warranto' calling upon the respondents to exhibit the authority under which they are functioning and acting as the members of the Managing Committee of a school in South Calcutta known as the Chakra-beria High School and for an injunction restraining them from functioning as such.
( 2 ) THE petitioner is the father and guardian of two students of the said Chakraberia School which is located at 93, Bakulbagan Road and at 23/1 Chakraberia Road, South Calcutta. It is alleged in the petition that at a meeting of the guardians of the students of the said school held on 14th May 1950 a Managing committee of the school was constituted in accordance with the Revised School Code which it is said was framed by the Calcutta University under the Indian Universities Act (Act VIII (8) of 1904 ). It is alleged that the respondents have constituted themselves into a rival Managing Committee and have wrongfully obtained the approval of the University in terms of Rule 5 of the Revised School Code although the conditions precedent which must exist before the University can validly grant its approval did not in fact exist, the petitioner challenges the rights of the respondents to be in office as members of the Managing Committee on the ground that the approval granted by the University has not been validly given in accordance with Rule 6 of the Revised School Code. It appears that the Managing Committee constituted by the respondents was formed on the 3rd September 1950, the approval of the University was asked for on or about the 13th September 1950 and the University granted its approval on the 18th September 1950. It appears further that the Managing Committee of this school is constituted not according to the provisions of the Revised School Code but the members of the Managing Committee are elected by the General Committee of the South Suburban School, another well-known School in South-Calcutta, and the members of the Committee formed by the respondents were so elected by the General Committee of the South Suburban School.
( 3 ) MR. Einayak Banerjee, the learned Advocate for the respondents has contended that the offices held by the respondents not being statutory offices nor being offices of a public nature this application for a writ of 'quo Warranto' is not maintainable.
( 4 ) IN Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. 9, Paragraph 1374, page 805 it is pointed out that formerly the remedy of 'quo Warranto' was confined to cases of usurpation upon the Crown directly but later cases have extended the remedy in respect of offices of a public and substantive nature which are created by or under a statute or under Charter granted by Crown. It is further pointed out that a Writ refused in respect of the office of a master of a hospital and free school, which institution was a private charitable foundation and the right of appointment to offices therein was in governors who were private and not public functionaries and it was immaterial that a Charter of Incorporation for the Institution had been granted by the Crown. The writ also does not lie for the purpose of trying the validity of an election to a fellowship of a college nor does it lie in respect of the office of a Surgeon or Physician of a hospital founded by private persons and afterwards incorporated by Act of Parliament, (Footnote (d), page 805) nor in respect of the office of a committeeman of the Licensed Victuallers' Association. 'ex parte Abel Smith', (1863) 8 LT 458.
( 5 ) RELIANCE has been placed on behalf of the petitioner on the case of 'r. v. Guardians of St. Martin', (1851) 17 QB 149 to show that if the office is one in which the public has an interest, a writ will lie, no matter whether the office is created by Statute or not. In the case of 'ashgar Ally v. Birendra Nath', 49 Cal WN 658 at p. 670, Gentle J. considered the case of 'r. v. St. Martin's Guardians' and ref
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.