AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
We have heard the parties in full and were about to dictate the order disposing of the appeal. However, it transpires that the West Bengal Board of
Madrasah Education (hereafter the board) and the Director of Madrasah Education (hereafter the director) have been joined as appellants along with
other appellants, but vakalatnana executed by the board and the director is not part of the memorandum of appeal.
At this stage, Mr. Mukherjee, learned senior advocate appearing for the appellants prays that the board and the director may be transposed as
proforma respondents in the appeal. The prayer stands allowed. Mr. Pal, learned advocate-on-record for the appellants is granted liberty to array the
board and the director as proforma respondents in the cause title of the memorandum of appeal upon deletion of the particulars at serial nos. 4 and 7.
This writ appeal registers a challenge to an order dated 9th July, 2014, whereby W.P. No.36782 (W) of 2013 filed by the respondents 1 and 2 before
us was disposed of with certain directions by a learned Judge of this Court. An order passed by the director dated 22nd July, 2013 was under
challenge in the writ petition. By such order, the director rejected the prayer for approval of the Madrasah Shiksha Kendra in question made by the
respondents 1 and 2 and granted them liberty to file a fresh application, if they wished to have approval of the institution as an unaided madrasah.Â
The learned Judge, in our opinion, was rightly of the view that granting of liberty was uncalled for and the application itself should have been
considered as one praying for approval of the institution as an unaided madrasah provided the applicants agreed thereto.
We are informed by Mr. Mukherjee that the director is not the appropriate authority to consider the question of approval; it is the board that is
authorized to consider an application for approval of an institution as an unaided madrasah. We are also informed by Mr. Mukherjee that the
respondents 1 and 2 had invoked the contempt jurisdiction of the learned Judge on the ground that the director had not complied with the order dated
9th July, 2014 despite their willingness to have the institution approved as an unaided madrasah. From the order dated 24th November, 2017 passed
by the learned Judge on W.P.C.R.C. 180 (W) of 2017, we find that the rule was discharged accepting the submission made on behalf of the director
that he had no authority in law to consider the application for recognition as submitted by the respondents 1 and 2.
In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that interest of justice would be sufficiently served if the director submits the application for approval
before the West Bengal Board of Madrasah Education, if not already submitted, and such board is directed to consider the application in accordance
with law. It is ordered accordingly.
The appropriate officer of the board shall proceed to consider the application for approval once again as early as possible but not beyond 12 (twelve)
weeks from the date of its receipt. With the aforesaid modification of the impugned order, we dispose of the appeal together with the connected
applications. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal formalities.