Jakiur Rahman vs State Of West Bengal & Ors.

This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petitioner has alleged that he is the Secretary of a certain unaided

Madrasah (junior Madrasah) which was organized by several people including the writ petitioner and one Newton Mondal. There was a district Level

Inspection Team (DLIT) reporting 2013 that the Madrasah could not be recommended for approval because it had no playing field.

Perhaps because Lord Wellington once said that the battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton but more probably, because the

statutory rules required it, no approval was granted or recommended in 2013 to the said Madrasah. Subsequently, some land was deeded, however, to

the Madrasah for the purpose of a playing field. There was a second inspection by the DLIT whose report appears at Annexure ‘P-3’. This is

dated March 27, 2015.

The DLIT recommended approval. Concurring with the same the respondent no.6, the District Inspector of Schools submitted the report to the

respondent no.5 (The Director of Madrasah Education, West Bengal) as part of reports in respect of 43 other Madrasahs of which last Madrasah in

the list was a Primary Junior High Madrasah whose recognition is now in question. This memo, forwarding the report seeking recognition of the

unaided Madrasah, is dated May 21, 2015. From then till now the respondent no.5 has failed to take any step as required under statute in the matter of

recognition of the said Junior High Madrasah.

On the contrary, from the office of the Director of Madrasah Education, Annexure ‘P-7’ shows that the Deputy Director in answer a request

for the Right to Information Act about the fate of the said recommendation for recognition with total non-application of mind had asked the respondent

no.6 to give information since the respondent no.6 was allegedly the custodian of the office copies of the DLIT reports. It appears that the respondent

no.5 and his subordinates forgot the report sent to the respondent no.5 under cover of a memo dated May 21, 2015.

When the matter was moved on service, Mr. Halder appearing for the Board, which is the respondent no.2, submits that on a preliminary issue he has

objections to the writ petition being entertained. He submits that the petitioner described as Zakiur Rahman, Secretary of the Organizing Committee of

the Madrasah is not the person who was authorized by the Organizing Managing Committee to file the present petition despite what has been

mentioned in the list of dates and despite the allegations contained in paragraph 11 of the writ petition. In fact, Mr. Halder submits that referring to the

allegations contained in paragraph 18 of the petition that the person who was actually authorized by the Managing Committee filed a writ petition,

which was dismissed as withdrawn albeit with a liberty to file afresh.

As I find from the records, it was dismissed for technical reason of non-joinder of a necessary party. However, it is very irritating that such a mistake

continues to appear in the writ petition. I have looked at the entire writ petition as a whole. Not only are the same enclosures perhaps used in a copy

of the earlier writ petition are annexed hereto (which is clear from the fact that the earlier pagination has been cancelled out and the same page with

new pagination has been included) but it appears that this is not a writ petition drafted a new but “a copy paste job†where only the respondent

missing in the earlier round has been added.

However, such laziness on the part of a lawyer to draft does not mean that there was any attempt to mislead the Court since, records are before the

Court and annexed to the present writ petition itself. While deprecating such practice which would otherwise have been false allegations made on oath

in order to obtain a favourable order, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, I think this defect can be cured by imposing on the petitioner a

cost of 30 G.Ms. to be paid to the State Legal Services Authority.

As and when such costs are paid, the writ petitioner’s learned advocate shall enclose a photocopy of the receipt of payment of such costs to and

send it along with a communication of the order to Mr. Mukherjee, learned Additional Government Pleader, through his learned junior appearing in the

matter. The writ petitioner has served all the respondents as appears from the affidavit of service. The respondent no.2, The West Bengal Board of

Madrasah Education, appears through Mr. Halder. Learned Additional Government Pleader has been gracious enough to appear not merely for the

State of West Bengal but for all the other respondents who are instrumentalities of the State.

After the order was passed I requested Mr. Mukherjee to contact the respondent no.5 and have his junior serve a copy of this order to the respondent

no.5 informing that this Court hereby ordered the respondent no.5 to take appropriate steps in accordance with law in respect of recommendation for

recognition, which has been forwarded to the respondent no.5 by the respondent no.6 on May 21, 2018, within a period of four weeks from the date of

communication of this order in a manner mentioned above by Mr. Mukherjee’s learned junior.

In case it is found that the said DLIT report of 2015 or any connected paper is missing, in such a case, the respondent no.5 shall inform the writ

petitioner and his Madrasah and the respondent no.6 within 24 hours of such discovery and shall fix a date for hearing when the respondent no.6, the

writ petitioner and any concerned person of the locality shall be given hearing at which time the official respondents, who have custody of the office

copies, shall produce the same for the respondent no.5 to decide the matter. I must indicate my extreme displeasure at the non-application of mind by

the Director of Madrasah Education as appears from Annexure ‘P-7’ because of the reasons aforesaid. The writ petition is allowed.