AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The short point involved in this Article 226 petition is whether the seventh and eighth respondents are entitled to be elected as guardian representatives
in terms of Rule 2(k) of the Rules of Management Rules for Recognised Nongovernment Madrasahs (Aided and Non-aided), 2002.
The writ petitioners’ specific case is that during lifetime of the ninth and tenth respondents â€" the fathers of the respective wards in whose cases
â€" their uncles, seventh and eighth respondents respectively, have been elected as guardians’ representatives, â€" and not were all validly elected
at all.
On several prior occasions the matter was taken up and none appeared on behalf of the private respondents (respondents no.7, 8, 9 & 10). The
affidavit of service filed does not show the service on the above-mentioned respondents. It shows service only on the State respondents. Therefore, so
far as the seventh-tenth respondents are concerned, at best, it is an affidavit of dispatch. Therefore, I cannot hold that the service on these
respondents is complete.
Though Mr Bhattacharya appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners ably assisted by Mr Basu submits that the Aadhaar card of the ninth respondent
â€" the father of one of the wards â€" has been disclosed in a supplementary affidavit on behalf of the petitioner which shows that the father is alive,
in the absence of proof of service, this is a mere allegation, supported by a record, not yet tested.
I am of the view that this matter cannot be decided without, at least, giving an opportunity of being heard to the seventh to tenth respondents. On
behalf of the State it is submitted that no copy of the supplementary affidavit has been served on it. On behalf of the first and sixth respondents it is
alleged that no copy of the supplementary affidavit has been served on them.
Mr Basu learned advocate-on-record of the petitioner has been requested to make available the copies of the supplementary affidavit so that the said
respondents may deal with it. Already there was a direction for filing of affidavit which the respondents have not complied with as yet.
Therefore, let a fresh service by speed post with AD be effected on the seventh to tenth respondents and each of them and let the affidavit of service
be filed before May 18, 2018 in the department and the filing number of such affidavit be supplied to the principal officer of this court. Such service is
to be effected on behalf of the petitioner.
In the event the supplementary affidavit is served on the appearing respondents through their learned advocates and a copy of the supplementary
affidavit is served on each of the seventh-tenth respondents, the respondents and each of them shall be entitled to file a combined affidavit-in-
opposition to both the writ petition and the supplementary affidavit within a period of two weeks after the ensuing summer vacation; reply, if any,
within a period of one week thereafter.
The writ petition shall appear under the heading ‘for orders’ on June 20, 2018 at 2 p.m. It is made clear, if on the returnable day the opposition
is not filed for any reason, or if there is absence of any of the parties, the matter shall be taken up on merits without requiring the assistance of such
parties.
I further record my finding at present tentatively that the seventh and eighth respondents are not entitled to offer themselves their candidates in the
category of guardians’ representatives within the meaning of Rule 2(k) as referred to above, while the fathers of their respective wards are still
alive. Question shall be re-visited next day.