MAT/852/2020 of ALHAJ INTAJ ALI SHAH Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. on 31 December 2020

ADUL 231.12.2020. mb/pg.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTACIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONAPPELLATE SIDE

MAT No. 852 of 2020with

IA No: CAN 1 of 2020

(Through Video Conference)

Alhaj Intaj Ali Shah-vs.- The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Alhaj Intaj Ali Shah

…Appellant-in-person

Mr. Tapan Kumar MukherjeeMr. Somnath Naskar …for the State The grievance of the appellant is that the learnedSingle Judge, by the impugned order, directedappointment of administrator instead of ensuring thatthe new managing committee was elected. Theappellant, appearing in person, argues that theappointment of administrator without hearing theappellant was de hors the law.

However, by the impugned order dated December16, 2020, the learned Single Judge merely directed theWest Bengal Madrasah Board to forthwith appoint anadministrator. It was further directed that the existingmanaging committee shall cease to functionimmediately upon appointment of the administratorand the administrator shall take over the functioning of the Madrasah and conduct its day-to-day affairs. It wascategorically directed in the impugned order that theadministrator shall, as soon as possible, conduct anelection of the managing committee of the Madrasah interms of the applicable Rules and shall hand over themanagement of the Madrasah to the newly electedcommittee upon reconstitution.

The argument, that the impugned order runscontrary to the previous ad interim order, passed byanother learned Single Judge of this Court, dated July16, 2018 does not hold water, since the said previousorder only indicated that the respondents shall berestrained from reconstituting the managing committeetill disposal of the Rule or further orders, whichever isearlier.

However, fact remains that the statutory life ofthe erstwhile managing committee has already reacheda terminus and, as such, the erstwhile managingcommittee cannot have any say in the affairs of theMadrasah.

The Madrasah cannot function in a vacuum and,as such, the appointment of an Administrator in theinterregnum is fully justified.

In such view of the matter, the impugned order issound in law in the context of the present case.Moreover, the impugned order was not contrary to theprevious interim order dated July 16, 2018; rather, it was in aid of the said previous order, ensuring that thefunctioning of the Madrasah is not hampered in themeantime.

As such, we find no merits in the present appealand the connected application.

Accordingly, MAT 852 of 2020 and CAN 1 of 2020are dismissed, treating them as on the day’s list.

There will be no order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, ifapplied for, be made available to the parties uponcompliance of all requisite formalities.

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)

(Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.)