Anil Rajkumar Mukerji And Ors vs Rev. Paritosh Canning And Ors

The Court: This is an appeal from an interim order dated 12th July, 2019 in the above suit.

By the interim order this court directed that the Board of Governors of the school in question La Martiniere School will not take any decision regarding

management of the school till the disposal of the application. In that period the Ex-Officio Governors will not appoint any person as “Additional

Governorâ€​. By the same order this court revoked leave to institute the suit granted earlier under Section 92 of the Code.

First of all, we deal with the order revoking the leave under Section 92 of the Code.

It goes to the root of the suit. In our prima facie view, this revocation amounts to dismissal of the suit or rejection of the plaint virtually. The averments

in the plaint and the reliefs sought invite more extensive arguments as to whether the present suit is maintainable under Section 92 of the Code. At the

interim stage this leave ought not to have been revoked. The question whether this leave under Section 92 was granted properly or not shall be

decided as a preliminary issue at the time of trial of the suit. That part of the impugned order revoking leave is set aside.

The suit challenges the resolution taken in the meeting of the ex officio Governors the respondent/defendant nos. 1 & 2 held on 18th June, 2019 and

constitution of the Board of Acting Governors of the school made on 21st June, 2019, further to that resolution. The allegation is that on that day the

appellant/plaintiff Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 were removed from the Board and the respondent/defendant Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 were appointed as Acting

Governors in the Board by the respondent/defendant Nos. 1 and 2, by not noticing the ex officio members and excluding them from the meeting. The

meeting was a nullity. So was the decision taken therein, Mr. Joy Saha, learned senior advocate for the appellant/plaikntiff, submits.

This is denied by Mr. Saktinath Mukherjee, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of defendant/respondent Nos. 1 and 2. He submits that the

meeting was convened in accordance with the convention being followed for a long time, the convention being that the permanent ex officio

Governors of the Board, the defendant/respondent Nos. 1 and 2, nominate the other members. That was done at the said impugned meeting.

Prima facie it appears that although this convention is not quite in accordance with the Will cum deed of endowment, other documents and

decrees/orders of this court for running of the school, but nevertheless it has been followed for quite sometime.

Mr. Joy Saha, learned senior advocate argued, supplemented by Mr. Jishnu Saha, senior advocate and Mr. Ranjan Bachawat, senior advocate

appearing on behalf of respondent no. 8, that the suit invited the court to frame a proper scheme of the administration for management of the school in

accordance with the wishes of the testator or author of the Trust creating the Trust, with suitable adaptation keeping in mind the change of

circumstances in more than 200 years since making of the Will of the testator and creation of the original Trust on 1st January, 1800.

At this stage there is no evidence before us to declare the decisions taken on 18th and 21st June, 2018 as illegal or wrongful but, certainly they are

under challenge and there are substantial grounds to challenge the same, prima facie.

We are of the prima facie opinion that there are two warring groups to take control of the administration of the school. We think the students should

not suffer. The school has to run. Its functioning cannot be frozen.

Considering the fact that there is a substantial question to be tried and also taking into account the prima facie case and the balance of convenience,

we appoint Mr. Justice Tapan Kumar Dutt, a retired judge of this court and a former student of that school as the administrator. The Board appointed

on 21st June, 2019 including the permanent ex officio Governors shall act under the control and supervision of the administrator.

He shall be paid remuneration of Rs. 1,00,000/- per month out of the school fund.

All decisions concerning the management and running of the school shall be subject to the approval of the administrator. The administrator of the

board shall be at liberty to appoint such staff including manager, auditor, etc. which he deems fit and proper for proper administration of the school.

The impugned order is superseded by this order.

We extend the time to file affidavits in the pending interim applications before the trial court as follows:-

Affidavit-in-opposition by 5th August, 2019. List the interim application before the learned trial Judge on 20th August, 2019, subject to the

commencement of the board. Affidavit-in-reply may be filed within 16th August, 2019.

This court makes it clear that this is an interim arrangement subject to the result of the interim applications or the suit.

The learned Trial Judge is requested to dispose of all pending interlocutory applications as early as possible.

These appeals (APO 109 of 2019 and APO 112 of 2019) and the connected applications (GA 1668 of 2019 and GA 1611 of 2019) are disposed of.