A minority educational institution's classification must be factually determined to ascertain jurisdiction under specific educational laws, limiting the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction when alternative remedies exist.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

Heard Mr. A. Dhar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners and Ms. P. Das, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Secondary Education Department.

2. In both the proceedings, the petitioners herein have assailed the orders dated 08.01.2024 passed in Misc. (J) Case No.4/2024 as well as the order dated 01.02.2024 in Misc. (J) Case No.11/2024 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the Code’) whereby certain ex-parte prohibitory as well as mandatory directions have been issued by the learned District Judge, Dibrugarh.

3. Taking into account that the issue involved in both the proceedings are one and the same, this Court takes up both the proceedings for disposal by this common judgment and order.

4. Mr. A. Dhar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the petitioner No.1 is a Minority Educational Institution and this aspect of the matter would be apparent from the certificate issued by the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions dated 21.03.2012. He submitted that being a Minority Educational Institution, the petitioners’ school would not come within the ambit of Non-Governmental Educational Institution as would appear from the very definition of the Non- Government Educational Institution contained in Section 2 (xv) of Assam Non-Government Educational Institution (Regulation and Management) Act, 2006 (for short ‘the Act of 2006’).

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners therefore submitted that the petitioners being Non-Government Educational Institution, the Educational Tribunals which have been constituted pursuant to an interpretation of Section 27 of the Act of 2006 read with Rule 21(d) of the Assam Non- government Educational Institutions (Regulation and Management) Rules, 2007 given by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Abdul Gofur Mondal Vs. State of Assam and Others and the subsequent notification issued on the basis thereof dated 03.12.2015 whereby the Court of the District Judge and Additional District Judge of each district have been empowered to function as Educational Tribunals would have no jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the petitioners therefore submitted that the learned District Judge, Dibrugarh could not have exercised jurisdiction over the petitioners’ school and passed the impugned orders which have been assailed in both the applications before this Court. He submitted therefore that the impugned orders be interfered with in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.

6. This Court upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, put a specific query upon the learned counsel for the petitioners as to whether the instant proceedings only relate to the challenge to the impugned orders whereby the learned District Judge had exercised powers for grant of ex- parte mandatory as well as the prohibitory injunctions. The learned counsel submitted that by way of the instant proceedings, the order dated 08.01.2024 passed in Misc. (J) Case No.4/2024 as well as the order dated 01.02.2024 in Misc. (J) Case No.11/2024 have been put to challenge.

7. In the backdrop of the above, let this Court now take note of as to whether this Court should exercise its supervisory jurisdiction to interfere with the orders dated 08.01.2024 passed in Misc. (J) Case No.4/2024 as well as the order dated 01.02.2024 passed in Misc. (J) Case No.11/2024. It is very pertinent to take note of that these orders are passed in exercise of powers u