Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Bikki Dubey & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 27 January, 2015
Author: Dipankar Datta
Bench: Dipankar Datta
1
27.01.2015
Item No.31
SB
W.P. 2861 (W) of 2015
Bikki Dubey & Ors.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. P. S. Deb Barman,
Mr. S. Alam.....................for the petitioners.
Mr. L. K. Gupta,
Mr. J. K. Gupta...............for the State.
Mr. A. Roy Mukherjee,
Mr. J. Acharya...................for the respondent no.6.
Sk. J. Hossain...........for the respondents 2 and 3. The petitioners are the students of Shree Agrasen Mahavidyalaya, District - Uttar Dinajpur (hereafter the said college). By presenting this writ petition, they seek to challenge the election that is scheduled to be held tomorrow for constitution of the students' union of the college. According to Mr. Deb Barman, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners, the election schedule has been fixed at the dictates of the District Magistrate, Uttar Dinajpur; further, steps to conduct the election not having been taken in accordance with the regulations relating to constitution of the students' union of the colleges affiliated to the University of North Bengal (hereafter the university), as framed by the university, this Bench ought to entertain the writ petition and stall the elections.
I find no reason to grant relief as claimed by the petitioners, since the writ petition itself is not maintainable having regard to the decisions of two coordinate Benches of this Court, with which I entirely agree. 2 The first decision is reported in 2005 (4) CHN 68 [Himadri Sekhar Biswas & Ors. Vs. Behala College & Ors.]. In such decision it was held as follows:
"6. In my view, steps taken by the Principal in terms of the constitution, which admittedly has no force of law, do not affect the public at large, and they are likely to affect, if at all, only the students of the college. To my mind, an action taken on the basis of an instrument that has no statutory force cannot be described as an action affecting the public at large, unless it is directed against the public at large.
7. I am therefore of the opinion that students of the college cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction asking juridical review of the impugned decisions of the Principal on the ground that they have a public character with an imprint of public interest.
12. To my mind, actions taken by an authority, which are not statutory or which are not taken by him in performance of any public function or in discharge of any public duty, are not open to challenge by the aggrieved person before the Writ Court, though such persons may have adequate remedy before appropriate forum."
The decision in Himadri Sekhar Biswas & Ors. Vs. Behala College & Ors. was considered by the subsequent coordinate Bench in the decision reported in 2012 (5) CHN (CAL) 78 [Aditya Ghosh Vs. University of Calcutta]. In paragraph 28 it was held as follows:
" 28. This Court would go a step further. While following the aforesaid judgment passed in the case of Himadri Sekhar Biswas, this Court would further like to state that there may be some Colleges where elections are held on the basis of University Regulations and therefore, these elections can be said to be held under a statutory document but even then, a Writ Petition emanating out of such students' election will not be maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India because whatever the results of the elections are or whatever procedure may be followed in these elections, whether they be statutory or non-statutory, the ultimate outcome of the same concerns only the students of that particular institution/college and such an outcome cannot be said to have any nexus or any connection in either the domain of public law or in the domain where the public at large can be said to be affected. These 3 elections, at best, serve the own interest of the College and/or the students and/or the University but they do not affect public life. Consequently, a Writ Petition in such educational institution election matters would not be maintainable even if an election is held under any rule or regulation of any University."
Mr. Deb Barman was called upon to advance his argument regarding maintainability of this writ petition keeping in mind the view expressed in Himadri Sekhar Biswas & Ors. (supra) and Aditya Ghosh (supra). He has invited my attention to an unreported decision of one other coordinate Bench dated 27.01.2014 in W.P. 2320 (W) of 2014. According to him, that writ petition was filed by certain students of the said college. The Court restrained the authorities from proceeding with the election for constitution of the students' union scheduled to be held on 28.01.2014 and directed the college authorities to prepare a fresh schedule for issuance and acceptance of nomination papers and scrutiny as per norms and regulations. It is contended that the election that is proposed to be held tomorrow is a continuation of the process that started in early January, 2014 and was under challenge in W.P. 2320 (W) of 2014. Since the District Magistrate, Uttar Dinajpur had unnecessarily intervened and directed holding of election on 28.01.2014, this writ petition involves public law element and deserves to be entertained.
This argument of Mr. Deb Barman is equally without merit. It could not be shown that the election that is proposed to be held tomorrow is a continuation of the earlier process, which was interdicted by the coordinate Bench while passing order in W.P. 2320 (W) of 2014. In fact, Mr. Deb Barman himself has admitted that the students who presented 4 W.P. 2320 (W) of 2014 have passed out from the said college and as such not entitled to take part in the current election process. He has also admitted that the students who have been admitted during the last academic session are entitled to participate in the current election process.
In view thereof, the process of election which is under challenge in this writ petition cannot be comprehended as one in continuation of an earlier process. It is a process for constitution of the students' union, which would have a life of one year in terms of the university rules and regulations from the date it is constituted on completion of the election process. Pertinently, the coordinate Bench while deciding W.P. 2320 (W) of 2014 intervened without having the benefit of looking into the decisions in Himadri Sekhar Biswas & Ors. (supra) and Aditya Ghosh (supra).
This Bench is of the clear view that no public law element is involved in this writ petition and, therefore, interference is unwarranted. The writ petition stands dismissed, without any order for costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the parties as early as possible.
(DIPANKAR DATTA, J.)