AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
@JUDGMENT-JUDGMENT
The Court : Several specially assigned applications in the suit have been listed. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of defendant nos. 1 and 2 and renews his prayer for vacating the direction in interim order dated 12th July, 2019. The restraint put on his client by that order is as quoted below:
"Plaintiffs are entitled to an interim order. The Board of Governors of the schools will not take any decision regarding management of the schools till disposal of this application. The Ex-Officio Governors will not, in that time, appoint any person as Additional Governor."
Mr. Joy Saha, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of plaintiff and prays for adjournment. Similar prayer is made by Mr. Bachawat, learned senior advocate appearing for defendant no.8. The submission is that it is a very serious matter, which must be heard and they be heard on adjourned date.
Text of order dated 23rd June, 2020 is reproduced below:
"Mr. Bhattacharya, learned senior advocate, appearing on behalf of defendant nos. 1 and 2 submits, the interim order must be vacated since the Additional Governors could only have held office till 31st March, 2020. Mr. Saha appears on behalf of plaintiffs and urges this Court to hear his submissions.
Paucity of time intervenes. Since this suit stands assigned to me, list as before Appellate Side, on next date of my sitting."
Interim order dated 12th July, 2019 was made on moving GA 1517 of 2019. Following from the order is extracted below:
"He draws attention to extract from Major General Claude Martin's Will, which he submits, is dated 11th January 1810. Article 22 in the Will says the testator lived as a Roman Catholic. By article 24 was bequeathed a sum of money to be put under protection of Government or under Supreme Court. They were permitted to devise an institution, inter alia, for public good of this city or establish a school, to fulfil wishes of the testator in regard thereto. He then refers to decree dated 22nd October, 1832, made In Equity by Supreme Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal. Decree directed establishment of a school called and distinguished by name 'La Martiniere', to be conducted, as nearly as possible, in conformity with 24th clause of the Will. The decree also provided, inter alia, for there being four Ex-Officio Governors. The Ex-Officio Governors were to annually elect and nominate four Additional Governors, who shall during the year, for which they are nominated and elected, have equal power and authority with Ex-Officio Governors." (Emphasis supplied) In that context following further extract from said order is reproduced below.
"The interim order will be as above for there to be expeditious adjudication and management being restored to the Board. More so because there was appointment of Additional Governors, who on appointment 'shall' have, during the term, equal power and authority with Ex-officio Governors.
List on 31st July, 2019 under appropriate heading." (Emphasis supplied) It is clear that plaintiffs were appointed as Additional Governors for a period of one year. On approaching Court the interim order was passed and short directions given for expeditious adjudication and management being restored to the Board. It is now, therefore, necessary that there be clarification that the interim order was not intended to overrun into the next term. Since the application could not be disposed of within the term of plaintiffs, on the controversy of whether they were rightly or wrongly removed, this clarification that the interim order cannot and does not presently operate.
Mr. Saha submits, there was another aspect, which led to the passing of the order and the clarification made, should not be made. The other aspect is the question of administration. Court having had prima facie satisfaction on there being necessity in the matter of administration, had passed the interim order and it should not now be clarified to the effect of it being vacated.
Court has perused order dated 12th July, 2019 and is convinced that what weighed in the making of it was prima facie appreciation of the manner, in which plaintiffs had been removed. The larger question of administration may be a question to be answered but was not gone into at that stage.
List on next notified date.