Managing Committee Of Shree Balkrishna Vithalnath Vidyalaya And Another vs State Of West Bengal And Others

Moushumi Bhattacharya, J

Counsel appearing for the petitioners mentioned this matter in the morning praying for urgent orders with notice to the respondents.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that on 30th July, 2019 at about 9-23 p.m., the petitioner no.2, being the Headmaster of the concerned school, received a telephone call from one Mr. S. Kullia, Sub-Inspector of Police, Jorabagan Police Station Kolkata, asking the petitioner no.2 to produce himself at the said police station today i.e. on 1st August, 2019 at 4-00 p.m. Counsel recounts the exchange between the petitioner no.2 (Headmaster of the concerned school) and the concerned Sub-Inspector, which is to the effect that the said police officer is implementing an order passed by this Court. The tone and tenor of the words used by the police officer, which was reflected upon playing the recorded conversation in Court for the benefit of Counsel present is one of reckless nonchalance and of taking matters in his own hands. The police officer has used denigrating words which are disrespectful and insulting to the process of the Court.

Counsel for the petitioner makes an attempt to find the immediate trigger behind the call made by the police officer which incidentally was followed by two more calls made in the morning of 31st July, 2019. Counsel places an order passed by the Chairman of the Appeal Committee, West Bengal Board of Secondary Education, dated 12th September, 2018, which is impugned in the present proceeding and the relevant part of which is set out below:

"Opposite party is directed to comply the order within the stipulated period and as per spirit of this order positively failing which the Board with the help of D.I. of schools and O/C of the local P.S. shall implement the order very strictly."

Counsel submits that the concerned police officer may have taken recourse of the direction given in the impugned order. Counsel also places an order dated 20th December, 2018 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court which records the following undertaking given by Counsel appearing for the private respondent:

"Mr. Sanyal undertakes that his client shall not try to join the school nor to take any police assistance for the same till January 7, 2019."

Learned Counsel submits that the action of the Sub-Inspector in putting pressure on the petitioner no.2 to produce himself/visit the police station at a specified time today amounts to overreaching the power of the Court, when the Court is in seisin of the matter.

Learned Counsel for the private respondent denounces the action of the police officer in calling the petitioner no.2 to the police station. Counsel disputes any suggestion to the effect that the private respondent may have been responsible in pressurizing the police to act in the manner as aforesaid.

Learned Counsel for the Board suggests that the police officer may not have contemplated any punitive action against the petitioner no.2 since the only suggestion made for the said petitioner to visit the police station.

Having heard Counsel for the parties, the first factor which is required to be emphasized is that the writ petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated 12th September, 2018 passed by the Chairman, Appeal Committee, West Bengal Board of Secondary Education, relating to the suspension of the private respondent from service in the concerned school. Although, Counsel have only addressed the Court only on the jurisdiction and locus of the Appeal Committee to pass the impugned order dated 12th September, 2018, it was agreed that the merits of the writ petition would be adjudicated only upon deciding the preliminary point of the jurisdiction of the Appeal Committee of the Board.

The matter was fixed today for hearing and for Counsel to submit their notes. It is at this juncture that the petitioner no.2 received the calls from the concerned police officer.

In the view of this Court, whether the petitioner no.2 was called for punitive action by the police officer is not relevant. What is significant is that the concerned police officer took it upon himself to enforce the law when the Court is in the process of adjudicating the dispute.

Second, the impugned order of the Appeal Committee, which the concerned police officer may have relied on, was passed almost a year ago on 12th September, 2018. This Court has been hearing this matter from February, 2019 which is almost concluded. It is inconceivable therefore that the police officer would suddenly become proactive and decide to intervene. The undertaking given by Counsel for the private respondent on 21st December, 2018 also makes it clear that the private respondent did not intend to take any police assistance which Counsel fairly concedes should be extended till dispose of the writ petition. Therefore, it was agreed by Counsel that the role of the police would completely be excluded from the scope of the matter.

It is indeed unfortunate that a litigant would have to rush to a Court for protection from the threats or threatened action on the part of any authority when a Court is in seisin of a matter. Instances such as these would cripple an effective justice delivery system. This Court refrains from engaging with the unsavory details of the exchange which have been brought to the notice of this Court. It is sufficient if the concerned officer, or any other authority for that matter, is restrained from taking any steps against the petitioners until the writ petition is finally decided. Even otherwise, it is reasonable to expect that orders of Court have a certain sanctity and that any authority who misrepresents the scope and effect of such orders or uses the same to coerce or harass litigants should be dealt with in the strictest possible manner.

In view of the above, the writ petitioner no.2 will be at liberty not to appear before any authority let alone the concerned police officer while the Court is hearing the matter. It is also made clear that all concerned statutory authorities or otherwise will not take any steps against the petitioners which would have the effect of making a mockery of the present proceedings or subverting the cause of justice until the matter is finally decided.

Counsel for the parties hands over notes in the matter. List this matter on 16th August, 2019.