9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the petitioners have a fundamental right to property in the premises of the school. 2. Whether the Bihar Education Code has the force of law to divest the petitioners of their proprietary rights. 3. Whether the respondents can legally interfere with the management and property of the school. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Fundamental Right to Property: The petitioners, who are members of the Managing Committee of the Parsa High English School, claimed a fundamental right to property under Article 32 of the Constitution. They argued that the land and buildings of the school were purchased and constructed by the Managing Committee, and thus, they were the owners of the property. The court acknowledged that the respondents did not specifically deny the petitioners' claim of ownership in their affidavits. Therefore, it was taken as admitted that the Managing Committee purchased the land and constructed the school building, making them the proprietors of the land and building as trustees. 2. Force of Law of the Bihar Education Code: The respondents argued that the Bihar Education Code, particularly Article 182 as amended, provided the legal basis for their actions. The amendment allowed the Board of Education to withdraw approval of the Managing Committee and appoint an ad hoc committee for the management of the school. However, it was conceded by the Solicitor-General that the Education Code did not have the force of law. The preface to the Bihar Education Code indicated that it was issued under the authority of the Director of Public Instruction and had the same authority as administrative orders, not statutory law. Consequently, the court held that the Education Code could not legally deprive the petitioners of their property rights. 3. Legal Interference with Management and Property: The respondents attempted to justify their interference by citing the failure of the Managing Committee to comply with the directions of the Board of Secondary Education and the Government. They claimed that the appointment of an ad hoc committee was in accordance with the amended Article 182 of the Education Code. However, as the Education Code was not law, the court found no legal justification for the respondents' actions. The court noted an endorsement from the Inspector of Schools authorizing the use of local executive authorities to enforce the takeover, which further demonstrated the respondents' intent to interfere without legal basis. Conclusion: The court concluded that the petitioners had a fundamental right to property in the land and buildings of the school. The Bihar Education Code did not have the force of law to divest the petitioners of their proprietary rights. Therefore, the respondents were prohibited from interfering with the petitioners' properties except by authority of law. The court allowed the petition and ordered the respondents to pay the costs of the petition to the petitioners.
|
