Committee of Management, Janata Inter College vs Deputy Director of Education and Others

A.L. Rao, C.J.—This appeal is directed against the order dated 13.12.1995, passed in Writ Petition No. 36146 of 1995. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that though caveat had been lodged on behalf of the third Respondent to the writ petition, who is Appellant herein on 4.12.1995, the impugned order had been passed by the learned Judge behind the back of the third Respondent, who is Appellant herein and without affording any opportunity to it On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents 3 and 4 that neither the counsel for the Respondents 3 and 4 herein, who are the writ Petitioners nor the Court was aware that a caveat had been lodged on behalf of the third Respondent to the writ petition, who is Appellant herein and the impugned order had been passed by the learned Judge after hearing the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Standing counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2 to the writ petition. It is further contended that admittedly the third Respondent, who is Appellant herein has been continuing in office beyond the period of three years and one month and, therefore, it could not hold election of the new office bearers and only the controller is entitled to manage the affairs of the institution in question. In the circumstances, it is contended that the learned single Judge was quite justified in passing the impugned order and it cannot be said to be either Illegal or improper.

The question for consideration in this appeal is whether any order can be passed in a writ petition without giving reasonable opportunity to the Respondent, who has lodged a caveat. Once a caveat has been lodged, the party, who has lodged the caveat, has a right to be heard before any order is passed by the Court. The report submitted by the Stamp Reporter makes it clear that in fact caveat has been lodged by the third Respondent to the writ petition, who is Appellant herein, on 4.12.1995. The impugned order has been passed on 13.12.1995. Admittedly the said order has been passed without affording reasonable opportunity to the third Respondent to the writ petition. In the circumstances, the order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained. However, it is emphasised by the learned Counsel for the Respondents 3 and 4 herein that when the order does not suffer from any illegality and no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the third Respondent to the writ, petition, on the ground that the third Respondent to the writ petition has not been provided any opportunity before passing the impugned order, it need not be set aside. We are unable to accept the contention of the learned Counsel. As we have already mentioned above, when caveat has been lodged by any party, no adverse order can be passed against the party without giving reasonable opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge behind the back of the third Respondent to the writ petition, who is Appellant herein, cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

Learned Counsel for the Respondents 3 and 4 has, however, brought out to notice an order dated 8.9.1995, passed in Special Appeal No. 593 and contended that In the present case also, the matter may be sent back to the learned Single Judge but the impugned order need not be set aside. In the present case, a positive direction has been given by the learned Single Judge to appoint authorised controller. The case of the third Respondent to the writ petition, who is Appellant herein, is that the Appellant has been managing the affairs of the institution and, therefore, it is put to lot of prejudice by virtue of the Interim order passed by the learned Single Judge. In such circumstances, we are satisfied that the order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained.

We also do not find any force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the Respondents 3 and 4 that the appeal is not maintainable against the Interim order. But we have to bear in mind that while suspending the operation of the order, the learned single Judge gave a positive direction to appoint authorised controller. Therefore, this appeal Is maintainable.

For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order dated 13.12.1995, passed In Writ Petition No. 36146 of 1995 Is set aside. The third Respondent to the writ petition, who is Appellant herein, shall file its counter-affidavit within three days from today. Within three days thereafter the writ Petitioners, who are the Respondents 3 and 4 herein, may file their rejoinder affidavit. It is directed that Writ Petition No. 36146 of 1995 be listed before appropriate Bench for orders on 16.1.1996. We make it clear that the learned Single Judge may pass appropriate orders having regard to the merits of the case and In accordance with law without taking Into consideration any observations made by us In this order.

The appeal is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.