Harbhajan Singh Dhatt vs Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dastya

M.M. Punchhi, J.

Heard finally at the motion stage.

This is an acrimonious petition between two sets of people contenting themselves to be members of two respective Managing Committees of Khalsa College, Garhdiwala, District Hoshiarpur. The law invoked for the purpose is section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing notice dated 2811982 (Annexure p. 3) issued by the S. D. M. Dasuya initiallings proceedings under section 145(1) of the said Code. And as a equal thereto, there is an order under section 146(2) of the Code (Annexure p. 4) appointing Tehsildar, Dasuya as receiver. considering the case to be of emergency, and this too is the subject matter of attack.

For the disposal of this petition, the barest minimum facts need be taken note of. At one time,. there was a Managing Committee of the College. A section thereof wanting to hold fresh elections, intimated to the others. 1491981 to be the date for the purpose. The other section attempted to get the measure forestalled by seeking an injunction from the civil Court but unsuccessfully. Some proceedings took place, or ate shown to have taken place, on 1491981 revealing or showing that one set of people had been elected the duly constituted Managing Committee whereas the other set contended and claimed that their members had emerged out as the newly constituted Managing Committee. The unfortunate dispute seemingly affected the academic atmosphere in the College and the State of Punjab, as the pater families of all affairs, intervened and appointed an Administrator to look after the affairs of the College. This was to the extreme distaste and chagrin of some few who approached this court in Civil Writ Petition No. 55 10 of 1981 challenging the said measure of the State Government in appointing the SDM as the Administrator. While the matter was before the Motion Beach, and the matter was being adjourned from time to time, the hatchet was buried by the Assistant Advocate General making a statement that the Government had cancelled the appointment of the Administrator. This put an end to the petition rendering it infructuous on 1121982.

A new leaf to the chapter was turned by the police intimating to the S.D.M. on 2811992 that there was a dispute likely to cause breach of peace pertaining to the taking of possession of the College. The report is Annexure p. 1. The S. M. on that very day passed the order, Annexure p. 3 initiating proceedings under section 145(1) of the requiring the parties to attend his Court and particular date. And again on that very day, he passed the order, Annexure P. 4. attaching the College building under section 146(2) of the Code while appointing Tehsildar, Dasuya as the receiver for looking after the affairs of the college.

Challenge was made to these orders, and the proceedings by way of this petition by Harbhajan Somj Dhat and others impleading S. D. M. Dasuya and Mahant Sewa Dass the foremost amongst the rival group. as parties. When they came to grips on the subject on. 1231982 learned counsel foe. the petitioners and the learned counsel for Mahant Sewa Dass entered into a settlement jointly contending that the bone of contention between the respective parties was the proper election of the President and the office bearers of the Managing Committee and if, with the aid and intervention of the Court, such elections could take place, there remain no dispute much less a dispute regarding the possession of property, involving breach of peace, Mr. Mohinderjit Singh Sethi, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab had also very fairly appreciated the problem and had given out that if there remained no prehension of breach of peace the very basis for further proceedings could stand knocked off, andas much in view of the likely settlement, he thenceforth receded in comparative background. The effort set foot for getting fresh election held by appointing Mr. R. K. Battas as the Local Commissioner ran into rough weather. Some other persons Gurdial Singh Talib and others, moved Cr. M. No. 1637 and 1637A of 1982 in the present matter for being impleaded as parties. Since the matter was consensual to the parties in the present petition, I had declined their prayer. Those parties then approached the Supreme Court of India in special leave against my order Aforeindicated and their Lordships of the Supreme Court on 3041982 ordered that the petition of Harbhajan Singh Dhatt etc. for quashing the proceeding under section 146 of the Code would be decided by this High Court according to law, if it survives, but otherwise pending the hearing and final disposal of the appeal before them, they stayed. The election proceedings. Now, as ordered by the Supreme Court the election proceedings have been shelved and thus are a chapter apart to be carefully kept aside.

After all the travail. no distance has been covered. It is undisputably now left to be examined whether the impugned orders under section 145(1) and 146(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure were within the jurisdiction and power of the S.D.M. The matter is not res integral so far as the right or management of affairs of an educational institution is concerned. This court in three decisions being Cr. M. No. 2483M of 1974 (Kirpal Singh Jolly v. State of Punjab and others) decided by S.C. Mital, J. on 25111974 (reported in 1975 C.L.R. 67) which was later followed by P.S. Pattar, J. in Cr. M. No. 3610M of 1974 (D.A.V. College Managing Committee, Hoshiarpur our v. The Executive Magistrate 1st Class cumSubDivisional Magistrate, Hoshiarpur and others) on 20121974) and in Cc. M. No. 1662M of 1980 (Managing Committee B. S. P. Khalsa High School, Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur v. The State of Punjab and others decided by C. S, Tiwana, J. on 29101980 has uniformly hold that, the right to management of the affairs of in educational Institution is outside the domain of section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. With the weight of those decisions, with which I am in respectful agreement the Impugned orders have to be tested and they can well be done by extracting the sensitive portions thereof

Annexure P3

I am satisfied that a dispute likely to cause breach of peace exists concerning building and management of Khalsa College, Gardhiwala and

Annexure P4

Accordingly I attach the College building in exercise of powers under section 146(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Tehsildar Dasuya is appointed receiver for looking after the affairs of the College."

Vide order, Annexure p. 3. the learned S. D. M. could not initiate proceedings under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding any dispute likely to cause breach of peace concerning the management of the educational institution. Accordingly, that portion of the order has to he quashed and shall be taken deeming to have been scored off. Thus it can now be taken that the dispute which had prompted the S.D.M. to initiate proceedings under section 135(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure concerned only the building of the Khalsa College, Garhdiwala. This impression is further strengthened from the report submitted by the S.H.O., Annexure p. 2, wherein he had reported that the situation was taking a serious shape and the tension of the Managing Committees aggravating for taking possession of, the College. The next step in to direction is culminated in order, annexure p. 4, wherein while attaching the building of the College the S. D.M. in his order afore] extracted. while appointing Tehsildar as the receiver, has ordered him to look after the affairs of the college. The affairs of college to my mind are nothing but the management of the college, And what he could not do under section 145(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot by a subterfuge be done in proceedings under section 146(2) of the Code of Criminal procedure. Thus, as it appears to me, what is sought under order, Annexure p. 4, is to take over management of the college and this cannot be permitted to be done in any case.

Holding that proceedings under section 145(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure could well have been initiated in the discretion of the S.D.M. I am not for the present on the present material on the record, inclined to interfere any further in these proceedings either in the exercise of inherent powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Yet the order under section, 146(2) of the said Code in appointing the Tehsildar, Dasuya to look after the affairs of the College has got to be quashed in entirety and is hereby done, Accordingly, this petition is allowed to the limited extent afore indicated.

It is the earnest expectation of this Court that since the dispute relates to an educational institution, a nursery of our further generation, the S.D.M. would give his foremost attention to dispose the matter of as expeditiously as he can possibly.