Back
2006 Supreme(Cal) 245
High Court Of Calcutta
Soumitra Pal
SAKILA BEGUM - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
C. A. N. 3075 Of 2006
Decided On : 04/21/2006
Ajit Kumar Panja, ASHIS SANYAL, BILLWADAL BHATTACHARYA, Biswaroop Bhattacharya, DEBATOSH KHAN, GOUTAM DEY, K.K.KAPUR, SUBIR SANYAL, TAPOBRATA CHAKRABORTY
The Vice-Chancellor must have a subjective satisfaction after appraising the facts and forming a belief leading to the formation of an opinion before exercising emergency powers under Section 9(6) of the Calcutta University Act, 1979.
Headnote:
UNIVERSITY - INSPECTION - EMERGENCY POWERS OF VICE-CHANCELLOR - ACT-SECTION REFERRED : Calcutta University Act, 1979 (West Bengal Act), Section 9(6) - SUMMARY : The Vice-Chancellor's decision to inspect a college under Section 9(6) of the Calcutta University Act, 1979, was challenged on the grounds that he failed to form an opinion that the matter was urgent or emergent before taking action. The court held that the Vice-Chancellor must have a subjective satisfaction after appraising the facts and forming a belief leading to the formation of an opinion before exercising emergency powers. Since the records did not show any such formation of opinion, the court quashed the inspection order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, a college, challenged the Vice-Chancellor's decision to inspect the college under Section 9(6) of the Calcutta University Act, 1979, alleging that the Vice-Chancellor failed to form an opinion that the matter was urgent or emergent before taking action.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Vice-Chancellor must have a subjective satisfaction after appraising the facts and forming a belief leading to the formation of an opinion before exercising emergency powers. Since the records did not show any such formation of opinion, the court quashed the inspection order.
Issues: Whether the Vice-Chancellor formed an opinion that the matter was urgent or emergent before exercising emergency powers under Section 9(6) of the Calcutta University Act, 1979.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the judgment in Ramchandra Keshav Adke (supra) to hold that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all and that other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden. The court held that the Vice-Chancellor's failure to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 9(6) of the Act vitiated the inspection order and rendered it non est.
Final Decision: The court quashed the Vice-Chancellor's inspection order.
( 2 ) THEREFORE, the application for addition of party being C. A. N. 950 of 2006 is allowed subject to such objection that may be taken by the petitioner.
( 3 ) OFFICE is directed to add the applicant as respondents.
( 4 ) NO order as to costs. Re: CAN. 3075 of 2006
( 5 ) PERUSED the application for expunging the name of the Zohara parveen, applicant No. 9, from the application being CAN. 950 of 2006. I find sufficient grounds have been made out by the applicant in support of the application.
( 6 ) THEREFORE, let the name of Zohara Parveen applicant No. 9 be expunged from CAN. 950 of 2006.
( 7 ) THE application being C. A. N. 3075 of 2006 is disposed of.
( 8 ) THERE will be no order as to costs. W. P. 2197 (W) of 2006
( 9 ) THIS writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners praying for a direction upon the respondents particularly the Inspector of Colleges of Calcutta university, the respondent No. 3 to rescind the impugned letter dated January 10, 2006 for conducting inspection of the college concerned on January 28, 2006. The impugned letter dated January 10, 2006 is as under :-"senate HOUSE calcutta-73 dated, the 10th January, 2006 to the Principal, sarisha B. Ed. College, sarisha, Diamond Harbour, 24 Parganas (S)Sir, the undersigned is directed to inform you that an inspecting team consisting of 07 members will visit your college on 28. 01. 2006 at 12 Noon in connection with the allegations made by some teaching and non-teaching staff of your college. You are, therefore, requested to instruct the teaching and non-teaching staff as well as students of your college to be present on the date of inspection. Yours faithfully, inspector of Colleges"
( 10 ) LEARNED Advocate appearing on behalf of the University submitted that as there were glaring irregularities in the management of the college concerned, the Vice-Chancellor in exercise of the emergency powers conferred under Section 9 (6) of the Calcutta University Act, 1979 (for short 'the Act') had called for an inspection of the College. During hearing learned Advocate for the University authorities produced a copy of the record. It was submitted that from a perusal of the record, it is evident that besides other reasons, since there was no Governing Body in the college and the members of the staff were not paid their salary, the Vice-Chancellor in exercise of his emergency powers, considering the gravity of the charges, thought it prudent to arrange for inspection and, therefore, the action is just and proper.
( 11 ) LEARNED senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the statue is not powerless in granting extraordinary powers to the Vice-Chancellor as he may deem expedient in any matter in an urgent or emergent situation but before embarking on such action under Section 9 (6) of the Act, he should come to a belief and form an opinion which should be evident from the records, As seen from the records the Vice-Chancellor thought it fit to place it before some statutory body, but changed his mind and directed for arranging inspection. It was further submitted that under the Calcutta university First Ordinance, (for short "said rdinance") 1979, power has been granted under Ordinance 68 (2) for causing an inspection to be carried out through the Inspecting Officers of the University and such other person or persons as may be appointed by the respective Council for Undergraduate studies. Referring to Ordinance 70 (1) of the said Ordinance it was contended that if at any time Council for undergraduate studies has reasons to believe that proper standards of teaching, training or research are not maintained in a college, it can cause an investigation into the affairs of the college or institution by such person or persons as it may appoint for the said purpose after consulting the views of the Pro Vi
