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

2000 Supreme(Cal) 532

High Court Of Calcutta
M. H. S. ANSARI
BEJOY CHANDRA SAHA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
W. P.  14061 (W)  Of  2000
Decided On : 11/03/2000

Advocates Appeared:
Karabi Gangopadhyay, M.C.Das, N.K.Basu, P.C.GHOSH, S.K.MISHRA

There is no legal liability on behalf of the authorities performing either judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings to send notices of adjournment.

Headnote:

EDUCATION - WEST BENGAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION - EXTENSION OF TERM OF MANAGING COMMITTEE - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - ADJOURNMENT OF HEARING - OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD - VIOLATION - WRIT APPLICATION - DISMISSAL - NO ORDER AS TO COSTS.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, the Secretary of the Managing Committee and the Headmaster of a school, filed a writ petition challenging the order passed by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (the Board) which held that the status of the Managing Committee was unauthorized and its tenure had expired. The petitioners contended that the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as they were denied an opportunity of being heard in the matter.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that there was no violation of the principles of natural justice as the petitioners had been afforded an opportunity of being heard in the matter which they failed to avail. The court noted that the petitioners were aware of the date of hearing fixed by the Board but they chose not to appear before the Board on the said date and instead filed an application for adjournment. The court also noted that the petitioners failed to attend the hearing on the adjourned date despite receiving notice of the same.

Issues: 1. Whether the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice? 2. Whether the petitioners were denied an opportunity of being heard in the matter?

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the judgments in Nagendra Nath Shah v. State of West Bengal and Wazir Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Burdwan to hold that there was no legal liability on behalf of the Board to inform the petitioners of the adjournment by issuing notice or serving the same upon them. The court held that it was the duty of the petitioners to be present at the hearing before the Board at the time specified for hearing and to note if any orders of adjournment were made.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition and held that there was no violation of the principles of natural justice vitiating the impugned order.

M. H. S. ANSARI, J.

( 1 ) THE instant writ petition is filed by the Secretary of Managing Committee and the Headmaster of Baharal P. I. S. High School.

( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioners, the tenure of the Managing Committee has been extended from time to time and last such extension is up to 31-10-2000. The Managing Committe made applications before the Board for Extension of the term of the Managing Committee and no action having been taken thereon by the Board, a writ application was filed being W. P. No. 5769/ (W) of 2000 which was disposed of by an order dated 10-5-2000 inter alia, directing the Board to treat the writ application as representation and to consider the same upon giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and by passing a reasoned order within 6 weeks from the date of communication of the said order.

( 3 ) PURSUANT to the aforesaid order of Court, the Board took up the matter and fixed 10-7-2000 as the date of hearing. On the said date, however, the petitioners did not appear and instead made a prayer for adjournment of 6 weeks by their letter dated 7-7-2000 which, it is averred, was submitted to the office of the Board at 10. 30 a. m. on 10-7-2000 (Annex. P-11 ). It is further averred that on 11-7-2000 Assistant Inspector of Schools handed over a copy of the Telegram sent by the Board to the petitioner No. 2 (Headmaster) who was on leave on 11-7-2000 when he joined school on 12-7-2000.

( 4 ) BY the said Telegram intimation was given that the hearing had been adjourned by the Board to 12 (18)-7-2000. On that date, the Board, it appears heard the matter and its order was communicated to the petitioners by Memo No. 2768/g/1-6, dated 24-7-2000. By that said impugned order, the matter before the Board was disposed of holding that the status of the Managing Committee is unauthorised since it did not satisfy the conditions of the Board circular particularly dated 7-4-2000. The tenure of the Managing Committee, it was observed in the order had expired on 26-9-96 and the elections held on 27-7-97 for reconstituting the Managing Committee had been set aside by the High Court. As a vacuum had been created thereby, an administrator was appointed to manage the affairs of the institution in question.

( 5 ) THE petitioners have assailed the impugned order passed by the Board mainly on the ground that it is violative of principles of natural justice in that the petitioners had been denied an opportunity of being heard in the matter. The telegram intimating the adjourned date of hearing (12-7-2000) was received by the petitioners in the afternoon by which time the hearing had been concluded by the Board.

( 6 ) MS. Karabi Gangopadhyay, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent No. 4, i. e. Secretary, West Bengal Board of Secretary Education, however, contended that the petitioners had been afforded an opportunity of hearing which they failed to avail and cannot, therefore, complain of violation of principles of natural justice. It is not disputed, it was submitted by Ms. Gangopadhyay, that the petitioners had been informed of the hearing fixed for 10-7-2000 and on that date, the petitioners chose not to appear before the Board and instead filed an application for adjournment by 6 weeks. The order of High Court in W. P. No. 5769 (W) of 2000 specifically stipulated that the hearing should be completed within 6 weeks from the date of communication of the order. The said order was communicated to the Board by the letter of the counsel of the petitioners dated 13-6-2000 received on 14-6-2000 (Annex. P) and, therefore, the matter was required to be disposed of by 20-7-2000 to comply with the time frame stipulated by the Court. Ms. Gangopadhyay also relied upon the judgments in Nagendra Nath Shah v. State of West Bengal, reported in (1957) 8 STC 641 : (AIR 1957 Cal 463) and Wazir Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Burdwan reported in AIR 1970 Cal 415.

( 7 ) THE short point for consideration is whether the impug











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