Patna High Court
Baleshwar Prasad Chaudhary vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 1 January, 1800
Equivalent citations: AIR1963PAT373
ORDER
1. In this case the petitioner Baleehwar Prasad Chaudhary has moved the High Court for grant of a writ in the nature of certiorari for the purpose of calling up and quashing the order of the Chancellor, Bihar University, dated the 15th October, 1962, 'rejecting his claim for life membership of the Senate of the Bihar University, which is annexure G to the writ application. Cause has been shown by the learned Advocate General on behalf of the respondents to whom notice of the rule was ordered to be given.
2. Section 17 of Bihar Act XXVII of 1951 provided for the constitution of the Senate, and Sub-section (iii) of that section enacted that "every person who has given, whether in one or more instalments, a sum not less than fifty thousand rupees in cash or property of the equivalent value to, or for the purposes of, the University or of a college", shall be a life member of the Senate. It is alleged by the petitioner that on the 2nd March, 1960, he donated a sum of Rs. 50,000/-in the form of National Savings Certificates to the R.B. College, Dalsingsarai. The amount was accepted by the University authorities and on the 3rd March, 1960, the Registrar of the Bihar University wrote a letter to the Sub Postmaster of the Dalsingsarai Post Office accepting the pledge of the National Savings Certificates. On the 12th July, 1960, Bihar Act XIV of 1960 came into force. Section 17 (ii) of this Act provided that the Senate shall consist of the following persons:-
"Life members.
X X XX
(ii) Every person who has given, whether in one or more instalments, a sum of not less than one lac of rupees in cash or property of the equivalent value to, or for the purposes of, the University or of a college;
Explanation. -- Every person who was or was deemed to be appointed for life to be a member of the Senate of the Patna University established under the Patna University Act, 1951 (Bihar Act XXVII of 1951) shall be deemed to be a life member of the Senate of the University incorported and established under Section 3 within whose territorial jurisdiction he ordinarily resides;
X X X X"
On the 17th December, 1960, a letter was written by the Special Officer, Bihar University, to the petitioner intimating him that he was a life member of the Senate of the Bihar University under Section 17 (ii) of the new Act. On the 1st March, 1962, Bihar Act II of 1962 came into force. This Act was an amending Act and Section 12 (ii) of this Act provided as follows:-
"12. Amendment of Section 17 of Bihar Act XIV of 1960 -- In Section 17 of the said Act, --
X X X X (ii) under the heading 'life members' --
(a) in item (ii), after the words 'who has given', the words 'to the satisfaction of the Chancellor' shall be inserted;
(b) in the Explanation to item (ii), after the words 'ordinarily resides', the words 'if he proves to the satisfaction of the Chancellor that he has given a sum of not less than one lac of rupees of property of the equivalent value to, or for the purposes of the University or of a College' shall be inserted;
(c) in clause (ii) of the proviso to the Explanation to item (ii) the words, figures and comma 'under the Explanation to item (ii) under the heading 'class II-Life members' of Section 15 of the Patna University Act, 1951 or' shall be omitted;."
On the 28th May, 1962, the petitioner wrote to the Registrar of the University requesting that he may be declared a life member of the Senate, but his claim was rejected by the Chancellor on the 15th October, 1962, on the ground that under the new amendment no one can become a life member unless he has donated property worth Rs. 1,00,000/-.
3. On behalf of the petitioner the argument put forward by learned Counsel is that the amendment of Section 17 (ii) of Bihar Act XIV of 1962 made by Bihar Act II of 1962 is unconstitutional since it violates the right of property under Article 31 (2) of the Constitution which states as follows : -
"31. (2) No property, movable or immovable, including any interest in, or in any company owning any commercial or industrial undertaking, shall be taken possession of or acquired for public purposes under any law authorising the taking of such possession or such acquisition, unless the law provides for compensation for the property taken possession of or acquired and either fixes the amount of the compensation, or specifies the principles on which, and the manner in which, the compensation is to be determined and given."
It was, therefore, submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the amendment of Section 17 (ii) of the parent Act made by Bihar Act II of 1962 is ultra vires and unconstitutional and the order of the Chancellor dated the 15th October, 1962, which is based upon the amendment is also ultra vires and unconstitutional and must be quashed by grant of a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution. We are unable to accept the argument put forward on behalf of the petitioner as correct. We see no warrant for the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the office of life membership of the Senate comes within the conception of "property"' under Article 31 of the Constitution. Reference was made on behalf of the petitioner to Section 20 of Bihar Act II of 1962 which deals with the powers and duties of the Senate and reads as follows: -
"20. Powers and duties of the Senate. -- (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and the Statutes, the Senate shall be the supreme governing body of the University and shall have the entire management of, and superintendence over, the affairs, concerns and property of the University, and shall exercise all the powers of the University, not otherwise provided for, to give effect to the provisions of this Act.
(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing powers, the Senate shall exercise the following powers and perform the following duties, namely:-
(a) of making Statutes, and amending or repealing the same;
(b) of considering, amending or repealing Ordinances and Regulations;
(c) of considering and passing resolutions on the annual accounts and the financial estimates;
(d) of exercising the powers of control and superintendence over colleges including the power of affiliating or disaffiliating , such colleges provided that the power of affiliating or disaffiliating such colleges shall not be exercised except with the previous approval of the State Government;
Provided that the affiliating of such colleges shall not take effect unless approved by the Bihar State University Commission.
(e) of instituting and conferring such degrees, titles, diplomas and other academic distinctions as may be prescribed by the Statutes; and
(f) such other powers and duties as are conferred or imposed upon it by this Act or the Statutes."
It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Senate had the entire management and superintendence over the affairs, concerns and property of the University and could also exercise all the powers of the University, not otherwise provided for, to give effect to the provisions of the Act. Having regard to the language of Section 20 of Bihar Act II of 1962 and the whole scheme of the Act we are of opinion that the office of life membership of the Senate is not right of property within the meaning of Article 31 of the Constitution. It is true that the office of life membership carries with it certain powers and duties and superintendence over the affairs of the University, but there is no blending of any right of property with the office of life membership of the Senate. In our opinion the legal principle applicable to this case is that laid down by the Supreme Court in Dwarkadas Shrinivas v. Sholapur Spinning and Weaving Co., Ltd., AIR 1954 SC 119 at p. 136, where S. R. Das, J., pointed out that the rights of share-holders, e. g., right of voting, the right to elect directors of the company and the right to apply for the winding up of the company are no doubt valuable rights of the share-holders, but none of these rights can be called "property" within the meaning of Article 31 (2) of the Constitution for, by itself and apart from the shares, none of these rights can be acquired or disposed of. Similarly, in the present case the property of the University is vested in the University which is a corporate body, though the members of the Senate have the entire management and superintendence over it. Applying the principle laid down by the Supreme Court to this case it is manifest that the right of management of the affairs of the Senate cannot be said to be "property" within the meaning of Article 31 (2) of the Constitution. A similar view has been expressed by the Patna High Court in Sukhnandan Thakur v. State of Bihar, (S) AIR 1957 Pat 617 at p. 631 where it is pointed out that a public office is not in the nature of a property or in the nature of a contract, and from the legal point of view a public office is in the nature of an agency or a trust created by a public authority or by the Legislature for a public purpose. A public officer has no vested or proprietary interest in his appointment. For these reasons we are of opinion that the constitutional validity of the amendment made by the Bihar Act II of 1962 of Section 17 (ii) of the parent Act must be rejected as unwarranted.
4. In our opinion the petitioner has made out no ground for grant of a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution in this case. The application accordingly fails and must be dismissed.
There will be no order as to costs.