Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Avlon Shiksha Niketan & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 17 August, 2022
73.
17.8.2022
S.D.
W.P.A. 10275 of 2022
With
CAN 1 of 2022
CAN 2 of 2022
Avlon Shiksha Niketan & Ors.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Sayan Chattopadhyay
Mr. Rokon Ali
Mr. Koustav Sen
...For the petitioners.
Mr. Swapan Kumar Dutta, Ld.A.G.P.
Mr. Pradyot Kumar Das
...For the State.
Mr. Raghunath Chakraborty
Ms. Amrita De
...For the Respondent Nos. 4 & 5.
Let a copy of the resolution taken by the Governing
Body of Sarojini Naidu College for Women (respondent no.4)
dated May 13, 2022, be kept with the records.
It appears that petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 4
entered into a memorandum of understanding dated
February 6, 2019, whereby the petitioner no.1 was allowed to
launch a BBA course in Tourism under the aegis of
respondent no. 4. As per the said memorandum of
understanding, respondent no. 4 will receive 15 per cent of
the revenue, for each and every student, and the same is
required to be deposited to the College.
The memorandum of understanding, inter alia, provides
for the admission fees, eligibility criteria, and other terms and
conditions for running the said BBA course.
Clause 17 of the said agreement provides as follows:-
"17. That in view of the any anomalies (unfair
means in candidature of exam etc.) in any of
existing procedure, the Governing Body of
First Party shall be at liberty to
terminate/suspend/cancel/revoke this
memorandum of understanding by one month
prior notice to Second Party".
By a letter dated May 15, 2022, the Managing Director
of petitioner no.1 was intimated that the Governing Body of
respondent no. 4 in its meeting dated May 13, 2022, had
decided to terminate the said memorandum of understanding
dated February 6, 2019, "due to unavoidable circumstances"
with effect from July 1, 2022.
The petitioners have impugned the said letter dated
May 15, 2022, in this writ petition.
The resolution of the Governing Body indicates that
due to some allegations against the petitioners with regard to
the running of the said Tourism course, the Governing body
decided to terminate the agreement dated February 16, 2019.
The learned advocate for the petitioners submits that
those allegations are not correct. When the petitioners asked
for their legitimate dues from the college, the college
authorities motivatedly decided to terminate the agreement.
It has been submitted by Mr. Dutta, learned advocate
for the State that since this dispute is arising out of a contract,
the writ petition is not maintainable. Mr. Dutta further
submits that the dispute is private in nature and State has no
role to play in such dispute.
I am of the view that there is no absolute bar to
entertain a writ petition where the dispute is in the realm of a
contract. In an appropriate case, a writ court may also
entertain a writ petition involving disputed questions of fact.
The learned advocate for the petitioner has rightly
placed reliance upon a judgment reported at (2004) 3 SCC 553
(ABL International Ltd. vs. Export Credit Guarantee
Corporation of India Ltd.) in this regard. The relevant
paragraph of the said judgment is quoted below:-
"27. From the above discussion of ours, the
following legal principles emerge as to the
maintainability of a writ petition:
(a) In an appropriate case, a writ petition
as against a State or an instrumentality of a State
arising out of a contractual obligation is
maintainable.
(b) Merely because some disputed questions of
fact arise for consideration, same cannot be a
ground to refuse to entertain a writ petition in all
cases as a matter of rule.
(c) A writ petition involving a consequential
relief of monetary claim is also maintainable."
I also do not accept the contention of Mr. Dutta that the
State has no role to play in the facts of the case.
The State has promulgated the West Bengal
Universities and Colleges (Administration and Regulation)
Act, 2017, with the following objectives:-
"An Act to provide better administration and to
improve the quality of education in the State-aided
higher education institutions in West Bengal and for
such other matters connected therewith and
incidental thereto.
WHEREAS, it is considered necessary and
expedient to improve the functioning of the
State-aided Universities and Government-aided
colleges of West Bengal, and to bring about a
certain uniformity and standardisation in the
rules, practices and procedures of these
educational institutions, and to ensure efficient
and optimum utilisation of the resources at their
disposal, and to clearly define the rights and
duties of the various stakeholders as well as
address their service and welfare-related issues,
and to bring in greater responsibility,
transparency and accountability among the
managements and employees of the said
Publicly-funded higher education institutions
while respecting their need for institutional
autonomy, and to effect a synergistic functioning
among the State Government, the State-aided
Universities and Government-aided colleges so
as to achieve an efficient and vibrant higher
education system, and for such other matters
connected therewith and incidental thereto;"
The State in terms of Section 18 of the said Act has also
authority "to give directions to any college or in any
University in any matter not inconsistent with the provisions
of this Act and the college or the University shall be duty
bound to comply." (emphasis supplied)
In the present case, having regard to the disputed
question of facts involved in this case I am inclined to give a
direction upon the State to issue appropriate direction in
terms of Section 18 of the West Bengal Universities and
Colleges (Administration and Regulation) Act, 2017.
In that view of the matter, I dispose of the writ petition
giving a direction upon the Principal Secretary, Department
of Higher Education to depute a competent officer to look
into the grievance of the petitioner as made out in this writ
petition. The said officer will pass the appropriate directions
after hearing the College as well as the petitioners. Let such
decision be taken within a period of four weeks from the date
of communication of this order. Till such decision is taken by
the said officer, the order of termination dated May 15, 2022,
shall not be given any effect to.
Accordingly, W.P.A. 10275 of 2022 along with CAN 1 of
2022 and CAN 2 of 2022 is disposed of.
Parties shall act upon the server copy of this order
downloaded from the official website of this Court.
(Kausik Chanda, J.)
