Arijit Banerjee, J. - (1.) In this writ petition, filed as a Public Interest Litigation (in short 'PIL'), the petitioners have challenged the resolutions of the Calcutta University's Syndicate and Senate, both dated October 25, 2017 whereby it was decided to confer Honorary Degree of Doctor of Literature (in short 'D Litt') on the respondent no. 4 and to confer the award of Eminent Teacher on the respondent no. 5. Prayer has also been made in the writ petition for declaring Secs. 18 and 21 of the Calcutta University Act, 1979 as amended by the West Bengal University Laws (Amendment) Act, 2011 as ultra vires. However, no argument was advanced in respect of the said prayer.
(2.) The writ petition was moved on 8 January, 2018 and was heard on 10 January, 11 January 2018 and 12 January, 2018. The petitioners prayed for an interim order restraining the respondents from conferring the Honorary Degree of D. Litt on the respondent no. 4 and from conferring the award of Eminent Teacher on the respondent no. 5 at the convocation of the Calcutta University (in short 'the CU') that was scheduled to be held on 11 January, 2018. We refused to pass any interim order inter alia because of the delay in filing of the writ petition. There is no explanation in the writ petition as to why the decisions of the Syndicate and Senate dated 25 October, 2017 were sought to be challenged after two and half months. The other reason for declining to pass any interim order was that the respondents raised a preliminary issue of maintainability of the writ petition. We were of the opinion that without first deciding the issue of maintainability, no order should be passed. We understand that the convocation was duly held at the CU on 11 January, 2018 and the Honorary Degree of D. Litt was conferred on the respondent no. 4 and the award of Eminent Teacher was conferred on the respondent no. 5 at the said convocation. However, since the same was done during the pendency of this writ application, naturally, the validity of the same would abide by the result of this writ petition.
(3.) We first propose to address the preliminary issues raised by the respondents. Appearing for the State, Learned Advocate General and appearing for the CU, Mr. Shaktinath Mukherjee, learned Senior Advocate submitted that the present writ petition is not maintainable as a PIL. Both the learned Advocates also took the point that the writ petition is not maintainable also for non-joinder of necessary parties. In addition, Mr. Mukherjee contended that even if technically speaking it is assumed for the sake of argument that the present writ petition is maintainable as a PIL, the issue involved in the writ petition is not justiciable. Only if these issues are decided in favour of the petitioners, the question of considering the merits of the writ petition would arise.;