Court No. - 18
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5843 of 2018 Petitioner :- C/M Maqtab Jamia Islamia Kadaria Darul Ulum, Hatawa And Another Respondent :- District Minority Welfare Officer , District - Deoria And 11 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Azim Ahmad Kazmi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manoj Kumar Maurya
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard Sri P.N. Saxena, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Azim Ahmad Kazmi, appearing for the petitioner; Sri Manoj Kumar Maurya, learned counsel for respondent no. 4; Sri Rajesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for respondent nos. 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 11 and Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.
Committee of Management, Maqtab Jamia Islamia Kadaria Darul Ulum, Hatawa, Nakahani, Tappa Bhatni, Salempur, District Deoria through its Manager Nizamuddin is assailing the validity of the order impugned dated 30.07.2018 passed by learned District Judge, Deoria in Misc. Appeal No. 01 of 2018 (Roshan Jamir and others vs. Committee of Management, Maqtab Jamia Islamia Kadaria Darul Ulum) and for direction restraining the respondents from interfering in the peaceful functioning of the petitioners' Committee of Management during the pendency of the writ petition.
Record in question reflects that the petitioner filed the Original Suit Defective No.188 of 2017 (C/M Maqtab Jamia Islamia Kadaria Darul Ulum, Hatawa and another vs. District Minority Welfare Officer and others) in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.18, Deoria on 2.8.2017 assailing the orders dated 23.2.2017 and 16.5.2017 and for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering in the functioning of the petitioner's Committee of Management. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court No.18, Deoria passed an interim order dated 20.11.2017 staying the orders dated 23.2.2017 and 16.5.2017 and restraining the respondents not to interfere in the functioning of the Committee and its effective control. Challenging the order dated 20.11.2017 the defendant- respondent nos.4 to 12 filed Misc. Appeal No.01 of 2018 (Roshan Jameer and others vs. Committee of Management and ors). By the order impugned dated 30.7.2018, learned District Judge, Deoria has allowed the appeal in question and set aside the order of the trial court dated 20.11.2017 passed in the aforesaid Original Suit No. 180 of 2017 and the Court below has been directed to decide the temporary injunction application (paper No.6C) afresh within one month on the merits of the case.
Sri P.N. Saxena, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Azim Ahmad Kazmi, learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner submits that the order impugned is unsustainable on the ground that the trial court has proceeded in the matter after giving full opportunity of hearing to the defendant-respondents and passed the interim injunction order on 20.11.2017 but in most arbitrary manner, the lower appellate Court has taken the technical view regarding the service of notice under Section 80(2) of the C.P.C. as well as the fact that the relief as has been asked for is against one of the dead person and allowed the appeal in question on 30.7.2018. He has further made submission that in the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C., which was moved with the prayer to restrain the defendant-respondents not to interfere in the peaceful functioning of the Committee of the Management, it was claimed that the term of the Committee of the Management was valid upto 25.07.2018 and the vacancy was fallen vacant on the death of Ajmer and the same was filled up on 10.12.2013. In such a situation, taking into account the prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss, the trial court, in its own wisdom, has proceeded to accord interim injunction against the defendant-respondent. There is no illegality in the order of the trial court dated 20.11.2017 and the appellate order is unsustainable, as such this Court should come to the rescue and reprieve the petitioners.
In support of his submission, Sri P.N. Saxena, Senior Advocate has placed reliance on a Constitution Bench judgement of Hon'ble the Apex Court in Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu & Ors., 1992 Supp (2) SCC 651 at para 126, wherein following observation has been made:-
"The purpose of interlocutory orders is to preserve in status-quo the rights of the parties, so that, the proceedings do not become infructuous by any unilateral overt acts by one side or the other during its pendency. One of the contentions urged was as to the invalidity of the amendment for non- compliance with the proviso to Article 368(2) of the Constitution. It has now been unanimously held that Paragraph 7 attracted the proviso to article 368(2). The interlocutory orders in this case were necessarily justified so that, no land-slide changes were allowed to occur rendering proceedings ineffective and infructuous."
On the other hand, learned counsel for contesting respondents submits that so far as the technical view that has been so taken by the Appellate Court is concerned, definitely the established procedure has been given a go-bye while passing the order dated 20.11.2017 and the relief in the injunction application has also been sought against one of the dead person and in such case, after taking cognizance of the said illegalities, the Appellate Court has proceeded to allow the appeal in question and remitted the matter back to the Trial Court to decide the injunction application on the merit of the case after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties within a month's period and in such a situation, this Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution, may not proceed in the matter and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
The Court has proceeded to examine the record in question and finds that the lower appellant Court has recorded findings of fact and unless these findings are shown perverse or contrary to record resulting in grave injustice to petitioner, in writ jurisdiction under Article 227, this Court exercising restricted and narrow jurisdiction would not be justified in interfering with the same. In supervisory jurisdiction of this Court over subordinate Courts, the scope of judicial review is very limited and narrow. It is not to correct the errors in the orders of the court below but to remove manifest and patent errors of law and jurisdiction without acting as an appellate authority.
This power involves a duty on the High Court to keep the inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do what their duty requires and that they do it in a legal manner. But this power does not vest the High Court with any unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Court or Tribunal. It must be restricted to cases of grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principle of law or justice, where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes. The Court finds no justification warranting interference with the order impugned in this writ petition.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the considered opinion that at this stage, it would not be appropriate to adjudicate as to whether the notice under Section 80 of C.P.C. was valid or not, and as such, the Court is of the opinion that let the parties put their appearance before the appropriate Court on the next date fixed in the matter and in case the objection has not been filed till date, in such a situation, ten days' and no more time is extended to file objection in the matter and thereafter the trial court would proceed to finalize the injunction application (6C) without giving unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties and try to finalise the proceeding within one month's period. It is made clear that till the disposal of the aforesaid application, the parties shall maintain the status-quo as on today.
With the aforesaid, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 24.8.2018 V.S. Singh/RKP