2005 Supreme(Guj) 568

Gujarat High Court
Judgename :M.R.Shah
K.PRATAP REDDY - Appellant
Versus
INSTITUTE OF RURAL MANAGEMENT ANAND SOCIETY - Respondent
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION 6456 of 2005
Decided On : 08/30/2005

Headnote:

Constitution of India – Article 226 – Societies Registration Act, 1860 – Termination of contract of service – Unfortunate that Temple where education is being imparted, is converted into a political battle to retain power / control of management of premier institute Indian Institute of Rural Management-IRMA – This is an unique example to demonstrate up to what level a gentleman who is Founder Member of institute can act arbitrarily and unfairly to retain power /control over others in the institute – When this Court was considering brochure of IRMA to consider its status, on first page of same, there is message to students and public at large – By indulging into such type of infightings, groupism and politics, what message the management wants to send – IRMA is the premier and the only institute in entire country which is imparting education in Rural Management and offering Degree Course – petitioner who was earlier engaged as Faculty member of respondent No. 1 IRMA came to be appointed as Director of IRMA by order dtd. and said order was signed by respondent NO. 2 as Chairman of Irma – Prayed for writ of Mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order and/or directions commanding respondent NO. 2 to annul the action in terminating his services as Director of the said institute irma and thereupon further commanding the respondent NO. 2 as well as respondent No. 1 society to continue to recognize him as a Director of said institute and hence as a Member secretary of Board of Governors of IRMA – Whether petition under Article 226 of Constitution still maintainable against respondent society is society performing any public duty or public functions or would be maintainable challenging the termination of contract of service by society which is engaged in activity of training personnel in rural management and is voluntarily set up for that purpose as a fully autonomous private institution – Held, It is clear that the Honble Supreme Court has held that even a private contract can be enforced in a writ petition and the writ petition is maintainable and therefore, the contention of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that the relief in favour of the petitioner which according to them cannot be enforced of a contract of private service may not be granted, cannot be accepted – Action on the part of the respondent No. 1 purported to be on behalf of the respondent No. 2, this court cannot shut its eyes and would not allow the respondent nos. 1 and 2 to go scot-free on so-called technicalities – Voidable act is that which is a good act unless avoided, e. g. , if a suit is filed for a declaration that a document is fraudulent and/or forged and fabricated, it is voidable as apparent state of affairs is real state of affairs and a party who alleges otherwise is obliged to prove it. If it is proved that the document is forged and fabricated and a declaration to that effect is given a transaction becomes void from the very beginning – There may be a voidable transaction which is required to be set aside and the same is voided from the day it is so set aside and not any day prior to it – In cases, where legal effect of a document cannot be taken away without setting aside same, it cannot be treated to be void but would be obviously voidable – Considering aforesaid facts situation, this court is of firm view that if this Court will not intervene at this stage, it would amount to tantamount to perpetuate an illegal, arbitrary, high handed and non-est action of the respondent NO. 2 purported to be on behalf of respondent no. 1 – Therefore action of the respondent no. 2 purported to be on behalf of respondent No. 1 IRMA is without any authority, jurisdiction, contrary to IRMA rules, most arbitrary and with a view to retain the control of management of institution with a sole motive and purpose to take over the control of respondent No. 1 - irma and hence same cannot sustain in eye of law and same is required to be quashed and set side – Consequently petitioner is entitled to relief prayed in this extraordinary prerogative writ petition under article 226 of Constitution – Petition succeeds (Paras 32 to 40)