Patna High Court
Ad Hoc Committee Of Sanjay Gandhi Smarak ... vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 8 January, 2016
Author: Chakradhari Sharan Singh
Bench: Chakradhari Sharan Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.533 of 2015
IN
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2082 of 2015
=========================================
Ad hoc Committee of Sanjay Gandhi Smarak Mahila
Mahavidyalaya, Sheikhpura, through its Secretary Dr. Daya Nand
Roy, Son of Late Bishnudeo Roy. Presently posted as Associate
Professor, Department of History, T.N.B. College, Bhagalpur.
.... .... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of
Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Government
of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Higher Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Tilaka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur, through its
Registrar.
5. The Registrar, Tilaka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur.
.... .... Respondents
=========================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Dr. Anjani Pd. Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. P.N. Shahi, AAG 10
Mr. Sanjeet Kr. Singh, AC to AAG 10
Mr. Madhuresh Singh, AC to AAG 10
=========================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
And
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN
SINGH
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Patna High Court LPA No.533 of 2015 dt.08-01-2016
2/10
(Per : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI
SHARAN SINGH
Date : 08-01-2016
The Ad-Hoc Committee (hereinafter referred
to as "the Committee") of Sanjay Gandhi Smarak Mahila
Mahavidyalaya, Sheikhpura, is the appellant in the present
intra-Court appeal, filed under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent
of this Court, being aggrieved by the order, dated
04.02.2015, passed, in C.W.J.C. No.2082 of 2015, by a learned single Judge of this Court,.
2. The Committee filed the said writ application, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in February, 2015, giving rise to aforesaid C.W.J.C. No.2082 of 2015, seeking quashing of Memo No.1366, dated 09.11.2001, whereby the Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government of Bihar, had decided not to continue with the release of "Annual Recurring Government Grant" (hereinafter referred to as "the grant"), which was earlier sanctioned to the College to the tune of Rs.10 lacs. The Committee also sought for a direction, in the said writ application, to declare the College a deficit grant aided College, with effect from 05.03.1982, i.e., the date from which the College had been granted initial affiliation. In the said writ application, the Committee, in the alternative, sought for a direction Patna High Court LPA No.533 of 2015 dt.08-01-2016 3/10 commanding the respondents to take over the College and make it constituent unit of Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur, with effect from the date, the other Colleges, in 4th phase, were made constituent units.
3. Learned single Judge, by a short order, under appeal, has dismissed the writ application mainly on the ground of delay and laches, the same having been filed more than 13 and ½ years after passing of the impugned order, dated 09.11.2001. For the benefit of quick reference, the order, under appeal, dated 04.02.2015, is being quoted hereinbelow:-
"The writ application is dismissed on the simple ground that the petitioners are challenging an order of 2001 by the Department of Education, Government of Bihar after more than a decade. This is a good enough ground not to interfere with the decision at such belated stage."
4. Today, in a batch of three appeals, preferred by the State of Bihar, i.e., L.P.A. Nos.430 of 2014, 474 of 2014 and 312 of 2014 (The State Government of Bihar & Anr. vs. Parvati Kumari & Ors.), we have set aside the common judgment and order, dated 25.07.2013, passed by a learned Patna High Court LPA No.533 of 2015 dt.08-01-2016 4/10 single Judge of this Court, whereby, while disposing of three writ applications, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, viz., C.W.J.C. Nos.13136 of 2001, 10437 of 2002 and 7237 of 1999 (Parvati Kumari & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.), preferred by the Principal and Teachers of the said College, the said order, dated 09.11.2001, was set aside.
5. One of the grounds for setting aside the order passed by the learned single Judge, in those appeals, is that no grievance having been raised by the Governing Body of the said private College against the decision of the Secretary, Department of Higher Education, discontinuing annual grant, the employees of the College could not have maintained the writ application with the said grievance and, in fact, a specific plea had been taken by the State of Bihar that the writ petitions were not maintainable at the instance of the employees of the said private College.
6. Against the decision of the State Government discontinuing release of Recurring Annual Grant at the rate of Rs.10 lacs, the Governing Body of the College had approached this Court by filing a writ application, in the year 1997, giving rise to C.W.J.C. No.4733 of 1997. After having found that the decision to stop release of the said Recurring Annual Grant by the State Government was taken unilaterally without giving an opportunity to the College of being heard, Patna High Court LPA No.533 of 2015 dt.08-01-2016 5/10 this Court, by an order, dated 09.07.1998, had set aside the said decision of the State Government with a direction to pass an order afresh after giving the Governing Body of the College an opportunity of hearing. In was in the light of the said order, dated 09.07.1998, of this Court that the State Government, upon giving the Governing Body of the College an opportunity of hearing, passed the order, dated 09.11.2001. The Governing Body of the College did not challenge the said decision of the State Government, dated 09.11.2001, before any forum, including this Court, at any stage, prior to filing of the writ application, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in February, 2015, which came to be dismissed by the judgment, under appeal, on the ground of delay. The reason why the Governing Body of the College filed the writ application, in the year 2015, has been stated in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the present memorandum of appeal, which reads thus:-
"11. That thereafter, state Govt. woke up and filed L.P.A. in this Hon'ble Court against the order dated 25.7.2013 passed in C.W.J.C. No.7237 of 1999 and analogous case which has been admitted and in fact heard at Length in this Hon'ble Court but it remained inconclusive. It is submitted here that during the course of hearing of L.P.A. Patna High Court LPA No.533 of 2015 dt.08-01-2016 6/10 No. 312 it transpired that it would be appropriate if the Governing body come for relief sought for in the writ and presumably for facilitating the G.B. to file separate writ petition the L.P.A. was adjourned to 2.2.2015 for final hearing. It is submitted here that Governing body took recourse to filing of writ application in order to remove any impediment in passing the final and effective order which may ultimately benefit the College and its teaching and non teaching employee.
12. That it is stated here that after the order dated 16.1.2015 the Adhoc committee of Sanajy Gandhi Smarak Mahila Mahavidyalaya filed a writ application being C.W.J.C. No.2082 of 2015 and the writ petition, vide order dated 4.2.2015 has been dismissed on singular ground that- "Petitioners are challenging the order of 2001 by Deptt. of Education Govt. of Bihar after more than a decade without considering averment made in writ application."
(Emphasis added)
7. From the averments made in the writ application, paragraphs 11 and 12 of which have been quoted above, the only explanation offered for more than thirteen years of delay in challenging the decision of the State Patna High Court LPA No.533 of 2015 dt.08-01-2016 7/10 Government, dated 09.11.2001, is that in the course of hearing of LPA No. 312 of 2014, it transpired that it would be appropriate if the Governing Body of the College came forward to seek the same relief, as sought for in the writ application. It has been averred that "presumably for facilitating the Governing Body of the College to file separate writ petition", hearing of the Letters Patent Appeal was adjourned to 02.02.2015 for final hearing. The order sheet of LPA No. 312 of 2014 does not, at all, indicate that the hearing was adjourned in order to facilitate the Governing Body of the College to file a writ application. The averment made to the contrary in the writ application is not borne out of record; whereas we find that the said statement has been described to be based on "information derived from the records". Dr. Dayanand Rai, who has sworn affidavit of the writ application in his capacity as Secretary, Ad Hoc Committee of Sanjay Gandhi Smarak Mahila Mahavidyalaya, has evidently, thus, committed an act of perjury by making a false statement on oath in order to explain the delay in filing of the writ application and thereby making an attempt to obtain an order from this case based on such falsehood. He has made a false statement, said to be true to knowledge, derived from the records of the case, and has described adjournment granted by the Court, at the time of hearing of LPA No. 312 of 2014, Patna High Court LPA No.533 of 2015 dt.08-01-2016 8/10 to facilitate the Governing Body of the College to file the writ application, which is incorrect on the face of it. We deprecate the conduct of Dr. Dayanand Rai, who has sworn the affidavit and has made false statement on oath to explain the delay in filing of the writ application.
8. We would have proceeded against said Dr. Dayanand Rai by initiating proceeding for committing perjury and, thereby, contempt of this Court, by making false statemen t on oath. We, however, refrain from doing so and leave the matter with a note of caution that such misadventure, in future, may have serious consequences.
9. The explanation extended by the Governing Body of the College for delay in filing the writ application cannot be said to be bona fide, much less plausible one, and, therefore, not acceptable to this Court. In our considered view, the learned single Judge rightly rejected the writ application on the ground of inordinate delay, which does not require any interference by this Court.
10. We may refer to Supreme Court's decision, in case of "Delhi Administration & Ors. Vs. Kaushilya Thakur & Anr., reported in (2012) 5 SCC 412, wherein it has been held that High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot entertain belated claims in the absence of any tangible explanation. Paragraphs 10, 11 and Patna High Court LPA No.533 of 2015 dt.08-01-2016 9/10 14 of the said decision, being relevant, being extracted hereinbelow:-
"10. We have heard Shri H.P. Raval, learned Additional Solicitor General and Shri Rishikesh, learned counsel for Respondent 1 and perused the record. In our view, the impugned order as also the one passed by the learned Single Judge are liable to be set aside because while granting relief to the husband of Rspondent 1, the learned Single Judge overlooked the fact that the writ petition had been filed after almost 4 years of the rejection of an application for allotment of 1000 sq yd plot made by Ranjodh Kumar Thakur. The fact that the writ petitioner made further representations could not be made a ground for ignoring the delay of more than 3 years, more so because in the subsequent communication the authorities concerned had merely indicated that the decision contained in the first letter would stand.
11. It is trite to say that in exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court cannot entertain belated claims unless the petitioner offers tangible explanation (State of M.P. v. Bhailal Bhai).
Patna High Court LPA No.533 of 2015 dt.08-01-2016 10/10
14. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order as also the order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside and the writ petition filed by the husband of Respondent 1 is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs."
11. Reference, with regard to the above, may also be made to the case of S.S. Balu and Another v. State of Kerala and Another, reported in (2009) 2 SCC 479.
12. Placed thus, we do not find any valid reason, to interfere with the order under appeal.
13. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
14. In the facts and circumstances, as discussed above, we fine it to be a fit case, where exemplary cost should be imposed. We, however, refrain from doing so.
(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.) I. A. Ansari : I agree (I. A. Ansari, ACJ.) Praveen-II/-
U