Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Premananda Mukhopadhyay & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 7 April, 2025
07.04.2025
Item No.2
Ct. No.01
RP/SM
MAT 1892 of 2024
Premananda Mukhopadhyay & Anr.
VS.
Union of India & Ors.
+
IA No.CAN 2 of 2024
Mr. Madhu Sudan Sarkar, Adv.
Mr. Mowsonjit Sarkar, Adv.
Mr. Sourav Mandal, Adv.
...For the Appellants
Mr. Partha Ghosh, Adv.
Mr. Surnaneel Das, Adv.
...For U.O.I.
Mr. Sirsanya Bandopadhyay, Sr. Standing Counsel
Mrs. Tapati Samanta, Adv.
Mr. Arindam Ghosh, Adv.
...For the State
Mr. Anil Kr. Gupta, Adv.
...For the U.G.C.
Mr. Kollol Basu, Adv.
Mr. Kaushik Chatterjee, Adv.
Mr. Tirthankar Dey, Adv.
...For the Respondent
Nos.12 to 15
1. The reference may be made to the order dated 24th March, 2025, which reads as follows:-
"4. Therefore, the respondent nos.11 and 19 are deleted from the array of parties and the Registry shall carry out necessary correction in the cause title."
2. The Registry was directed to carry out the direction wherein direction was issued to delete respondent Nos.11 and 19 from array of parties, which is to be done within 2 days from date.
3. Learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the State has filed written instruction given by the Inspector-in-Charge, Electronic Police Complex, 2 Bidhannagar Police Commissionerate, dated 6th April, 2025 along with annexures. We have gone through the said report which is addressed to the learned Government Pleader along with annexures and it appears that there was initially an Officer who had investigated the matter and submitted a final report as Mistake of Fact and subsequently, pursuant to the orders passed by this court the case was taken up for re-investigation and final report was filed once again reiterating the same stand as Mistake of Fact. In the said final report dated 28th February, 2025, amongst other things it has been mentioned that the second appellant, Abhishek Mukherjee had completed the course but failed to collect the education certificate from the institution. The institution took a stand before the police that the result of the course was duly informed to the first appellant, namely, the complainant and second the appellant, who is the son the complainant and they were requested to collect the said certificate from the police station as per their convenient date and time. Further, it is stated that the Statement of Marks is yet to be collected by the complainant or his son, Abhishek Mukherjee.
4. Before we proceed to examine as to what direction has given in the writ petition we direct the appellants to approach the concerned police station and collect the Statement of Marks, which is stated to be lying with the 3 police authority and report this court about compliance with the said direction.
5. The second aspect is as to whether HDFC bank, which appears to have extended certain financial assistance to the fourth respondent/institution, is a proper and necessary party to the writ petition. They have been impleaded as respondent Nos.12 to 15. The 12th respondent being the bank, 13th respondent is its Managing Director, 14th respondent being the Director and the 15th respondent is a Senior Executive, attached to the Kolkata branch of HDFC bank. Learned advocate appearing for the bank submitted that in the application filed by the complainants under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Barasat which was taken as file C-Case No.2859 of 2015 there was no allegation against the bank or its Managing Director or Director or senior official and the said complaint was investigated and the case was referred to as Mistake of Facts Final Report dated 30th November, 2016. Thereafter, the complainants/ appellants had filed a protest petition on 28th June, 2017 wherein there was an allegation that the HDFC bank and its officials are party to the fraud/scam headed by the sixth respondent and his wife, the seventh respondent. We find this allegation is absolutely vague and is a clear afterthought and unnecessarily the bank has been dragged into. The transaction between 4 sixth, seventh and the HDFC bank is a private commercial transaction and it can no way be germane to the allegation made by the appellants against the sixth and seventh respondents as well as the institution which was founded by them. Therefore, we find the respondent Nos.12 to 15 to be neither proper nor necessary parties to this appeal and accordingly, their names are deleted from array of parties and the Registry is directed to make necessary correction in the cause- title within two days from date.
6. After we have gone through the report submitted by the police along with annexures we prima facie find that the investigating officer has not taken note of the public notice issued by the University Grants Commission in January, 2016. By the public notice U.G.C. informed the public at large and students that IIPM, 5th respondent is not a university within the meaning of section 2(f) of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956. Further, as per section 22(3) of the said Act, IIPM does not have the right of conferring or granting degrees as specified by the U.G.C. under section 22(3) of the said Act. It was further clarified for information that IIPM is neither entitled to award any UG or PG degree, including BBA/BCA/MBA degree nor it is recognised by U.G.C. Therefore, the public and students were informed that only universities established either by a Central Act or Provincial Act or State Act or an 5 institution deemed to be university under section 3 of the Act or an institution established empowered by the Parliament to award degree, can confer or grant degrees which are specified under the 1956 Act under section 22(3). A list of degrees specified by U.G.C. was made available in its website for information of all concerned. Prima Facie, we find that this aspect of the matter has not been investigated by the police. Further, we find from the annexures to the report submitted by the Inspector-in-Charge, Electronic Police Complex, that the Mahatma Gandhi University has addressed the said Sub-Inspector of Police by said letter dated 5th December, 2024, wherein it has been clearly stated that there was no agreement between the 5th respondent, namely, IIPM, Kolkata and the Mahatma Gandhi University during the period 2012-15. Further, it is stated that the second appellant, Abhishek Mukherjee was a student of Mahatma Gandhi University in the years 2012-15. A copy of the Statement of Marks has also been enclosed. If such is the stand then the investigation should have been proceeded in such direction since the Mahatma Gandhi University has stated that there is no agreement between IIPM, Kolkata and the Mahatma Gandhi University. From the closure report dated 28th February, 2025, we find that this aspect of the matter has also not been investigated. Therefore, the Inspector-in-Charge, Electronic Police 6 Complex, Bidhannagar Police Commissionerate is directed to show-cause as to why the matter should not be directed to be handed over to the CID, West Bengal, for a fresh investigation. Let a report in the form of affidavit covering all the above aspects shall be filed by the Inspector-in-Charge, Electronic Police Complex, Bidhannagar Police Commissionerate on the next date of hearing. Liberty is granted to the learned advocate for the appellants to file exception to the report filed by the police.
7. Let the matter be listed on 5th May, 2025.
(T.S. SIVAGNANAM) CHIEF JUSTICE (CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS), J.)