IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 2780 of 2005
Sri Satyadeo Pathak . .... ... Petitioner
Versus
Vinoba Bhave University & ors. .... .... .... Respondents
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D. G. R. PATNAIK
For the Petitioner :M/s Manjul Prasad, Sr. Advocate
& Mr. R.P. Gupta, Advocate
For the Respondent-University : Mrs. I. Sen Choudhary, Advocate
For the Respondent-State : J.C. to G.P.-III
For the Respondent no.7 : Mr. V.K. Tiwari, Advocate
--------
8/ 3.8.2009
Counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that though by virtue
of an interlocutory application and vide earlier order dated 12.2.2008, the
respondent no. 6, namely, Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Jharia Branch,
was impleaded as party respondent, but the petitioner has reconciled to the fact
that the Branch Manager, Central Bank of India is not a contesting party, since the
questions raised by the petitioner in this writ application are essentially to be
answered by the respondent-University and the respondent-State.
Learned counsel prays therefore that the name of the respondent no.6
be deleted from the cause title of the writ petition.
Considering the above submissions, prayer for deleting the name of
respondent no. 6, namely, Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, from the cause
title of the writ petition is allowed.
It appears that counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the
remaining respondents including respondent no.7
Heard Mr. Manjul Prasad, learned senior counsel for the petitioner,
Mrs. I. Sen Choudhary, learned counsel for the University, J.C. to G.P.-III for the
respondent-State and Mr. V.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent no.7.
Challenge in this application is to the order dated 2.5.2005 issued
under the signature of respondent no.2, whereby the petitioner’s name as a
2.
member of the regular governing body of the college has been deleted and has
been substituted by an ad hoc governing body.
Mr. Manjul Prasad, learned senior counsel by inviting attention to
annexure-6, which, was the initial notification under which the governing body of
the college was constituted and in which the name of the petitioner as donor
member was included, informs that the petitioner being the donor of the land, his
name was included in the Constitution of the governing body of the college in
accordance with the Rules. The grievance of the petitioner is that his name has
arbitrarily and illegally been cancelled and in his place, the name of another
member, namely, B.C.C.L. has been introduced by way of constituting the ad hoc
committee, although according to the petitioner, such other person has expressed
unwillingness to continue as a Member of the governing body.
From perusal of the annexure-6, it appears that the constituted
governing body of the college was to continue for a period of three years from the
date of its Constitution on 7.3.2003. Apparently, the period of governing body
which was originally constituted, had lapsed after three years way back in March
2006.
The petitioner’s claim, therefore is, no more tenable in view of the
lapse of the period of the governing body.
Mr. Manjul Prasad, however, submits that as per the Rules, the
donor of the land has essentially to be included as a member of the governing
body and as such, a direction may be issued against the respondents to include the
name of the petitioner in the governing body of the college.
Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that no such
prayer has been made in this writ petition.
As it appears from the above facts and circumstances of the case
including the fact that the relief claimed by the petitioner has been frustrated due
3.
to lapse of the period of the Governing Body of the college, this petition is
disposed of with an observation that the respondents shall consider the inclusion of
the petitioner’s name in the governing body of the college, if according to the
Rules, the petitioner can establish that he is entitled for his claim of being a
member thereof.
(D. G. R. Patnaik, J.)
R.Kr.