ORDER
P. Sathasivam, J.
1. The above Revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 6-2-2003 of the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Kodaikanal in I.A. No. 31 of 2003 in O.S. No. 17 of 2003.
2. Heard Mr. N.S. Sivam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sridhar, learned counsel for the respondent.
3. Kodaikanal International School through its Principal is the petitioner in the above Revision. The case of the petitioner school is briefly stated hereunder:
The respondent-student Nihal Ghosh studied in the petitioner school upto 8th Grade along with his elder brother. In 2001, his parents shifted Nihal Ghosh from Kodaikanal International school. In 2001, the parents of Nihal Ghosh requested Kodaikanal International School to re-admit their son Nihal Ghosh. By showing latitude, Nihal Ghosh was admitted in the petitioner school in July, 2001 in Grade 10 (Tenth Standard) signing Code of Conduct prescribed for the students. In February, 2002, the school staff Mirdula Bardhan reported that Nihal Ghosh was often disrupting the classes and his behavior distracts other students and spoils the sobriety of the school room environment and his slang and vulgarity suggest obsession with thoughts of sex. The examination by the school Doctor revealed that Nihal Ghosh has developed the habit of using Marijona and only half a packet of marijona now produces effect on him. He was advised to come for periodical counseling. On 28-8-2002 the school doctor reported that the boy has admitted that he is in the habit of using Heroine and Horse tranquilisers. The Dean of the student on seeing these Medical Reports caused surprise visit to the dormitory and on 30-08-2002 wherein he found Nihal Ghosh was smoking cigarette and his eyes were dilated. Again on 01-09-2002 on another surprise visit, the Dean found packet of cigarettes hidden under computer. Immediately the school by letter dated 03-09-2002 advised the parents of Nihal Ghosh to come and take charge of the boy immediately and give adequate medical help to enable the boy to get out of the drug addict habits and only when medical tests show that the boy has got out of these habits he could be allowed to study in the school.
4. The National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences and De additional Centre (in short ‘NIMHANS’) examined Nihal Bhosh. The medical tests revealed that the blood of Nihal Ghosh contains strains of Cannabis. Even though sufficient opportunity of six weeks was given to enable the parents to make Nihal Ghosh get out of these habits of using Narcotic drugs, there was no positive improvement. They failed to produce medical certificate from NIMHANS certifying that strains of Cannabis were removed totally from his blood and vein. After 6 weeks lapsed, the Discipline Committee of the school on 17-10-2002 resolved to offer the parents of Nihal Ghosh to suo motu remove him from the school, if they found to do, to send the certificates to them. The school also informed the parents that they could not continue their son in the school for his drug addict and their claim seeking arbitration was not permissible in law. While so, the respondent instituted a suit in O.S. No. 17 of 2003 before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Kodaikanal for declaration declaring the order of expulsion of the student-plaintiff from the defendant school by a oral order dated 4-9-2002 is illegal, void and unenforceable in law. The plaintiff also prayed for an order of mandatory injunction directing the defendant to permit the plaintiff to attend his 11th grade classes in the defendant’s school with all attended benefits. The respondent herein also filed I.A. No. 31 of 2003 along with the said suit for mandatory injunction, directing the Kodaikanal International school to admit him in Grade 11 of the school and allow him to continue his education. The learned District Munsif by order dated 6-2-2003, issued a mandatory injunction as claimed. Questioning the said order dated 6-2-2003, the petitioner school has preferred the above Revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
5. Mr. N.S. Sivam after pointing out the earlier developments, namely, the habit of the student Nihal Ghosh being a drug addict, correspondences between the school and the parents, medical officers, etc., and the order of the learned District Munsif, would contend that the impugned order namely mandatory injunction directing the school to admit the boy Nihal Ghosh is contrary to law and committed an error in passing such order without notice to them and without conducting any enquiry. On the other hand, Mr. Sreedhar, learned counsel for the respondent-boy, would contend that considering the facts and circumstances of this case and in the absence of any positive evidence regarding the allegation viz., “drug addict by a competent authority” and in the light of ensuing examination, the learned District Munsif was perfectly right in granting ex parte mandatory injunction.
6. In the earlier part of my order, I have referred to the claim of the school regarding the character and habit of the respondent Nihal Ghosh. Though the learned counsel for the respondent boy has demonstrated before me that there is no positive acceptable proof to show that Nihal Ghosh addicted to drug habits, I am of the view that it is not for this Court to agitate the rival claims in this Revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. I have already referred to the plaint averments and the relief prayed for in O.S. No. 17 of 2003 filed by the plaintiff-respondent herein-Nihal Ghosh which is pending before the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kodaikanal. The relief prayed for in the plaint are as follows:
“a) declaring the order of expulsion of the student the plaintiff from the defendant school by an oral order dated 4-9-2002 is illegal and void and unenforceable in law; and
b) consequently pass an order of mandatory injunction directing the defendant to permit the plaintiff to attend his 11th grade classes in the defendant’s school with all attended benefits;
c) xx xx
d) xx xx”
The plaintiff-respondent herein has also filed I.A. No. 31 of 2003 seeking ad-interim exparte interim mandatory injunction directing the defendant-petitioner herein to permit him to attend the school with all benefits and incidents till the disposal of the suit. The learned District Munsif without notice and without enquiry, granted mandatory injunction on 6-2-2003. The said order finds a place at page 35 of the typed-set of papers. The order does not disclose any reason for granting mandatory injunction, without notice, without enquiry and without affording opportunity to the school. Though both the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent cited several decisions in support of their respective claim, I am of the view that in the light of the allegations made against the boy Nihal Ghosh, and of the fact that public examinations are being conducted in the month of April, 2003, and also of the fact that the school in which Nihal Ghosh is studying is located in Kodaikanal itself, the learned District Munsif ought to have issued at least short notice to the defendant-school to enable them to put-forth their case. I have already stated that the learned District Munsif neither assigned the reason for granting ex parte mandatory injunction, nor the reason for giving such order without notice to the opposite party, namely, the school. Though Courts are empowered to grant ex parte orders like injunction and mandatory injunction, it is settled law that Court must satisfy itself that the order should contain the reasons and the urgency for granting such order without notice to the other side. I am satisfied that the learned District Munsif, has committed an error in granting mandatory injunction without notice and without conducting any enquiry. I am also satisfied that the learned District Munsif failed to assign any reason for granting such order.
7. In the light of what is stated above, the impugned order of the learned District munsif-cum- Judicial Magistrate, Kodaikanal dated 6-2-2003, made in I.A. No. 31 of 2003 in O.S. No. 17 of 2003 is set aside. The learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate is directed to restore the I.A. (I.A. No. 31/2003) and dispose of the same after affording sufficient opportunity to both parties, within a period of 3 (three) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner-school is permitted to file counter affidavit, if any, in the meanwhile. Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P. No. 2053 of 2003 is closed.