Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

48. As far as planned expenditure is concerned, the Director of the Institute has full powers in terms of Schedule I of the Regulations. All these legal provisions reflect authority and control of the Director over the affairs of the Institute. Of course, performance of such duties and functions by him, has to be under the control of the Institute Body and the Regulations framed in that behalf. His position can safely be compared to the Secretary or the Managing Director under the Company and Corporate Law where being part of the company management, he is empowered to represent the company in its legal affairs and even for its business affairs in accordance with law. Once stature of the person is explained under the Regulations or the provisions of the Act, there is hardly any scope for taking any other view. Examining it from the point of view of fairness and institutional interest, the answer still would be the same. It would be fair and in the interest of an institution that a person responsible for maintaining the records of the Institute in its day to day functioning and who is also a head executive functionary of the Institute, well- conversant with the business of the Institute, should represent the case of the Institute before the court. In fact, he would be the best man in respect of number of matters necessary for that purpose and the principle of fairness would require and impose responsibility upon him to bring true and correct facts as per the records of the Institute before the court without fear or favor. In these circumstances and in view of the clear position of law in that regard, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the Director of the Institute is the competent person to represent the Institute before the courts of competent jurisdiction. But this general rule is bound to have an exception and that exceptional situation had arisen in the affairs of the Institute more than often in the recent times, i.e. who should represent the Institute when the Director of the Institute himself is a petitioner or is personally a party in the litigation? Whenever there is a possibility of his interest clashing with the interest of the Government of India or the Institute Body, the rule of fairness, even remotely, would require that he should not represent the Institute in that situation and the Institute Body and/or Governing Body preferably the Institute Body should pass a resolution as to who should represent the Institute in such cases. Once that decision is taken, that person alone and none else should handle the affairs of the Institute in that case. Needless to notice that such authorized person has to be one who is familiar with the records, day-to-day business and requirements of the Institute. It was conceded before us by the learned Counsel appearing for the different parties that there is no provision under the Act and/or the Regulations framed there under clearly stating the term of office of the Director of the Institute.