Nopany High School & Anr vs State Of West Bengal & Ors

Tapabrata Chakraborty, J

The present writ petition has been preferred challenging inter alia a memo dated 29th July, 2019 issued by the Secretary of the West Bengal Commission for Protection of Child Rights (in short, the Commission).

Mr. Mukherjee, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that on the basis of a complaint lodged by the respondent no.6 alleging inter alia that her son, who is aged about seven years and is a student of class-II of Nopany High (in short, the school), had been mentally and physically harassed by his Bengali teacher and the Principal of the school, the Commission had taken steps to conduct an enquiry itself and had also directed the respondent no.3 to take necessary steps and to file an action taken report before the Commission within three days, as would be explicit from the memo dated 19th July, 2019 issued by the Chairperson of the Commission. Such parallel enquiry, as directed, is not sustainable in law.

Drawing the attention of this Court to the contents of the memoranda dated 19th July, 2019 and 29th July, 2019, Mr. Mukherjee submits that the Commission had prejudged the issue and had already arrived at a finding that the petitioners had acted in gross violation of the statutory provisions.

Mr. Guha Thakurta, learned advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 5-7 submits that the son of the respondent no. 6 had been ill-treated by the authorities of the school and the child is not in a position to attend the classes and is being disturbed by his classmates as well as by his Bengali teacher and in view thereof, appropriate steps needs to be taken by the Commission.

In reply, Mr. Mukherjee submits that in response to a letter of the Principal of the school dated 12th September, 2019 asking the guardians of the child to inform as to whether the child would appear in the ensuing Unit - II examination, a letter dated 19th September, 2019 was issued by the respondent nos.5-7, through their learned advocate, intimating that the child would not be sent to the school any more.

Mr. Bandopadhyay, learned advocate appearing for the State respondents as well as for the Commission submits the proceedings are yet to be completed by the Commission. While conducting such proceeding, certainly the contention of the petitioners would be taken into consideration and the apprehension of Mr. Mukherjee that the Commission had already arrived at a conclusion as regards the alleged guilt is unfounded. The allegations levelled would be considered by the Commission strictly in consonance with the statutory provisions, upon granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners against whom the complaint had been lodged.

When the matter was first heard on 21st August, 2019 this Court requested the learned advocates of the respective parties to make a sincere endeavour to resolve the dispute. Pursuant thereto, the learned advocates for the parties sat together and the child was again allowed to attend the classes. However, the dispute could not be finally settled.

The child is barely seven years of age. He is studying in class-II. Allegations had been levelled by the mother of the child that her son is being mentally and physically harassed. The antagonistic controversy between the mother of the said child and the school authorities needs to be considered by the competent authority. The object of the Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 is to provide speedy trial of offences against children or of violation of child rights and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The Commission is an expert body to decide such disputes. It has taken a decision to consider the complaint lodged, upon granting opportunity of hearing to all the interested parties. The Writ Court cannot transpose itself as an appellate authority and interfere with such decision taken by the Commission. The contents of the memoranda dated 19th July, 2019 and 29th July, 2019 cannot be read hyper technically and the same, in my opinion, do not reveal that the Commission had arrived at any definite conclusion as regards the alleged guilt. Furthermore, at this juncture, no adverse decision has been taken against the petitioners. In the said conspectus, no interference is called for at this stage in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The Commission would be at liberty to complete the proceedings, upon granting an opportunity of hearing to the parties including a representative of the respondent no.3. It, however, appears from the memo dated 29th July, 2019 that an enquiry was conducted by the Commission. In the event, such enquiry was conducted and a report has been prepared, the Commission shall hand over a copy of the said report to the school authorities so that they can deal with the same in course of hearing.

With the above observations and directions the writ petition is disposed of.

There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities.