MD.SHAHZAMAN ANWAR v. The State Of Bihar & Ors

Mr. Shashi Anugrah Narayan, Sr.Adv. Mr. N.A. Shashi, Adv. Mr. Rashid Rais, Adv. Mr. Rajendra Pd. Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rashid Imam, Adv. Mr. Om Prakash, Adv. Mr. Ram Balak Mahto, Sr. Adv. For the Respondent Nos. 9, 10 & 11 : Mr. Surendra K. Singh, Adv. ----------

16. 27.04.2009 The petitioner professes to be a councilor of the Council of Mirza Ghalib College, Gaya. The council 2 was set up in 1968 inter alia to promote education amongst members of the Muslim Community and for governance of Mirza Ghalib College at Gaya. The Council has a large number of memberships and it has framed its Bye-Laws. One of the Bye-Laws is that the governing body which is primarily formed by the Council which would directly manage the College would have a life span of four years. The seven members of the governing body which is constituted of ten members are to be elected by the Council from the Councilors. Bye- Laws 6(d) lays down that there must be at least fifteen days notice of meeting in that regards. Petitioner asserts that under the Bye-Laws as well as the directions of the Apex Court, there was an obligation on the Council to call a meetting for electing the governing body. It is submitted on behalf of the writ petitioner that on 02.06.2006 in terms of Bye-Laws 6(d), notices were issued for convening meeting for election of the Chairman of the Council but even though fifteen days has not elapsed, on 04.06.2006 a purported meeting was held showing election of seven members to the governing body and the Chairman of the Council. On behalf of the petitioner, it is further submitted with reference to Annexure-5 that in fact on that day i.e. on 04.06.2006 though meeting was 3 apparently fixed for 10:00 am, till 10:30 am, there was nobody in the College, that is the report of the Marketing Officer who had been deputed by the District Administration to get the meeting conducted in a lawful manner. Sri. Shashi Anugrah Narayan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner thus submits that both with regard to calling of meeting and with regard to holding of meeting, the Bye-Laws have been violated. Therefore, any claim of purported meeting be disregarded and fresh meeting for election be ordered by this Court. Mr. Rajendra Prasad Sing, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Chairman with Sri. Ram Balak Mehto, Senior counsel, opposes the writ petition. Their primarily objection is as to the maintainability of the writ petition. They submit that in fact it is a private dispute being brought out in the public and such a dispute can not be the subject matter of the writ petition. Mr. Mehto further submits that there being already a suit in respect of the same controversies though by a different set of councilors, the proper remedy would be of availing the suit and not the writ petition. On behalf of Respondents, it is brought on 4 record that notices were duly issued as far back as on

18.05.2006(Annexure-A/11 to the counter affidavit) to all the councilors in respect of the meeting with specific agenda to elect seven members for the governing council and to elect the Chairman of the Council for four years. It is pursuant to this notice dated 18.05.2006 that ultimately on 04.06.2006 on the schedule date the meeting was held. Thus no Bye-Laws even otherwise have been violated. As to the report of the Marketing Officer as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ application which has also been annexed as Annexure- A/15 to the counter affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner has deliberately not enclosed the detailed document. The document bears endorsement/order of the Sub-Divisional Officer. Also that endorsement clearly point out that the meeting in fact had started at 11:30 am on 04.06.2006 which part of the document was concealed by the writ petitioner. There are other lawyers to oppose this writ petition on behalf of respective parties. They are represented here and with the consent of the parties, this writ application is being disposed of at this stage. Whether writ would lie to the Council like in this case or not and whether the dispute can be subject matter of writ petition or not is not necessary to be 5 decided in view of the decision that this Court proposes today. On behalf of the petitioner only two stands have been taken. First that the notice convening meeting was issued on 02.06.2006. Thus there could be no meeting on 04.06.2006 and the meeting so convened invalid or not held. The answer to these submissions is very specific. On behalf of the petitioner the date 02.06.2006 has been picked up from the representation filed by the petitioner and other to the Councilors to the Chairman to hold meeting for the purposes of election on which it was endorsed by the Chairman that schedule for election had already started. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that this was initial notice. I am afraid, this can not be accepted for the very simple reason that the Chairman of the Council has endorsed that the process of election has already started which clearly means that it was already in process. In relation to the notice of meeting dated

18.05.2006 as circulated allegedly by Respondents, the petitioner’s only challenge is that the receipt of postal dispatch as appended in Annexure-A-12 under certificate of posting is not reliable because of two stray instances mentioned in the long list of over 700 parties. Even, if those mistakes are accepted, it does not vitiate 6 the notice itself and if that be so then notice as issued would be valid. Thus this issue on point of notice is decided as against the petitioner. Second, we come to whether meeting was held or not. Petitioner states that a reference to the report of the Marketing Officer would show that till 10:30 am meeting was not held. Meeting was scheduled to be held from 10:00 am. The Sub-Divisional Officer noted that the meeting took place on 11:30 am. That is the stand of the Chairman of the Council as well. The stand of the Chairman of the Council as per the counter affidavit is that the delegates as councilors started arriving at 10:00 am and being large in number, the Council could be brought in order only at 11:30 am for the meeting. He further submits on behalf of the Respondents that the report belatedly called for from the Marketing Officer as contained in Annxure-5 is a collusive report and can not be relied for the said purposes. There are councilors who have appeared and state that the said meeting was held. They had received notice and there is the petitioner who says otherwise. I am not required to resolve this issue in such a disputed situation. It has been pointed out that a Title Suit for the same very relief has already been filed and is pending that is Title Suit No. 214 of 2006 7 before Principal Sub-Judge I, Gaya that has been instituted by some of the councilors. In my view, in terms of Order I Rule 10 of C.P.C., the petitioner can intervene in those proceedings as a co-plaintiff and it would be open for the Court to decide on basis of evidence as laid before it the question whether meeting was held or not. But certainly in this jurisdiction, it would not be appropriate for this Court to deal with the matter any further. The writ is thus dismissed. Shageer (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J)