M.M. Dutt, J . - (1.) This appeal has been preferred by the State of West Bengal and three others against the judgment of B. C. Ray, J. dated Jan. 11, 1982, whereby the learned Judge made absolute the Rule Nisi issued on the application of the respondents under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) The respondents, who were the writ petitioners, are the members of the Managing Committee of Udayan Institution for girls, situate at 16, Gomes Lane, Calcutta. It is the case of the respondents that the said school was founded by respondent 4, Shri Prabati Charan Sen Gupta. The school was recognised as a Class X school by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education, hereinafter referred to as the Board, in the year 1965. The recognition was extended from time to time. After the special constitution of the Managing Committee of the school was approved by the Board, the Managing Committee of the school was constituted on July 2, 1967 with the respondents as the members thereof. After the Management of the Recognised Non-Government Institutions (aided and unaided) Rules, 1969 was framed, hereinafter referred to as the said Rules, the school made an application on Sept. 22, 1969 for the approval of the special constitution of the Managing Committee of the school under Rule 8 (2) of the said Rules. It appears that the board allowed the Managing Committee to continue until further direction or decision of the board. On Sept. 23, 1969, the Director of Public Instructions, West Bengal, recommended the approval of the special constitution of the school. Thereafter, an inspection of the school was held by the District Inspector of Schools, and he submitted a report. On such report, the Director of Public Instructions withdrew his recommendation for the approval of the special constitution of the Managing Committee of the school and recommended the suppression of the Managing Committee on Feb. 4, 1975. Pursuant to the said recommendation, the President of the Board issued an order dated Dec. 18, 1975 superseding the Managing Committee of the school and appointed one Shri P. C. Roy Chowdhury, Administrator, to take charge of the school.
(3.) Being aggrieved by the said order of supersession, the respondents instituted a suit being Title Suit No. 2223 of 1975 before the 8th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta, against the Board and its President and Deputy Secretary and the said Administrator, P. C. Roy Chowdhury, inter alia, praying for a declaration that the said order of supersession was illegal and invalid and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from giving any effect or further effect to the said order of supersession and from in any manner interfering with the functions of the plaintiffs, (the respondents herein) and the members of the Managing Committee of Udayan Institution for Girls. During the pendency of the suit, on May 29, 1976, the order of supersession dated Dec. 18, 1975 was withdrawn and recalled and a fresh order of supersession was made by the President of the Board on the ground of expiry of the term of the Managing Committee of the school. By the said order, the said P. C. Roy Chowdhury was again appointed Administrator of the School. Upon the withdrawal of the previous order of supersession and the passing of a fresh order of supersession, the respondents, by an amendment of the plaint challenged the subsequent order of supersession. It is the case of the appellants that the Administrator, after he had taken over charge of the school on June 6, 1976, was obstructed by the respondents in discharging his duties as the Administrator and, accordingly, he shifted the school from 16, Gomes Lane, Calcutta to 16, Noor Mohammad Lane, Calcutta on Jan, 11, 1977. It appears that on Jan. 21, 1978, the Board made a publication in the Ananda Bazar Patrika, the English rendering of which is as follows :-- "The address of the Udayan Institution for Girls, a girls school affiliated to the Board, is at 16, Noor Mohammad Lane, Cal-cutta-9. Any other school of the same name elsewhere does not have the affiliation of the Board." The respondents made two applications for temporary injunction, one on June 22, 1976 and the other oa Jan. 28, 1977. The nature of injunction that was prayed for in the applications will appear from the order of the learned Judge allowing the applications stated hereafter. The case of the respondents was that the Administrator never assumed charge of the school, and that the school was never shifted to 16, Noor Mohammad Lane, Calcutta. It was alleged that the Administrator started a new school under the identical name at 16, Noor Mohammad Lane, Calcutta, with the help of some ex-teachers of the school. It was further alleged that no paper, document or any other article was shifted to the new address.;