Bookmark
PDF
Share
CaseIQ

Samabendra Prosad Chakravarty & Anr. v. The University Of Calcutta.

Calcutta High Court

Mar 7, 1951

Judgment

Subsequent
References

CaseIQ

Important Paras

Please sign up to view Important Paras.

Smart Summary (Beta)

Structured Summary of the Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking an order directing the Respondent (the University of Calcutta) to withdraw or recall its decision that only those Class X students of Chakraberia High English School who passed a Test Examination conducted by Subal Chandra Pal, the officiating Head Master, and who were sent up for the Matriculation Examination in 1951 by him, would be admitted to the examination. The petitioners are two students of the school's Class X who passed a Test Examination held between 7 and 12 December 1950, and who were recommended by Ganendra Nath Sanyal, whom they and the petition allege to be the Head Master, to be sent up for the Matriculation Examination. They claim that the University refused to deliver examination forms and, by a notice dated 18 December 1950, asserted the rule favouring candidates examined by Subal Chandra Pal.

The factual matrix includes a long-running dispute over school management: competing managing committees (one associated with Someswar Mukherjee, another with R.M. Sen) and allegations of misconduct and dismissal against Head Master Ganendra Nath Sanyal. The Syndicate of the University approved the Someswar Mukherjee Committee at a time when the R.M. Sen committee and Mr. Sanyal contested that position; multiple civil suits and a criminal proceeding were instituted in relation to the management disputes, some of which were compromised or stayed. The University intervened administratively (including a show-cause calling on Mr. Sanyal and correspondence about committee approval) and ultimately issued the 18 December 1950 notice that prompted this petition.

Procedurally, the petition sought (a) withdrawal of the University's decision limiting recognition of Test Examinations to those conducted by Subal Chandra Pal and (b) a direction for the University to issue necessary forms and take steps to admit the petitioners to the Matriculation Examination. The Court heard contested submissions on jurisdiction, entitlement, bona fides, estoppel, non-joinder and the appropriateness of judicial interference with University decisions. The petition was dismissed and the rule discharged with costs.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the University’s notice of 18 December 1950 (that only students examined by Subal Chandra Pal and sent up by him would be admitted) was ultra vires, illegal or tainted by mala fides.
Whether the petitioners, having passed the Test Examination held between 7–12 December 1950 and having been recommended by Ganendra Nath Sanyal, were entitled to have the University issue forms and take necessary steps to admit them to the Matriculation Examination.
Whether the application was defective because the proper respondent should have been the Syndicate rather than the University as a whole, and whether non-joinder of rival committee members or of Mr. Sanyal and Mr. Pal was fatal.
Whether estoppel or the terms of a compromise of an earlier suit precluded the University or the Someswar Committee from challenging acts done by Mr. Sanyal (including holding the Test Examination).
Whether the petition was filed in bad faith or for the benefit of a third party (i.e., whether the petition was an indirect attempt to vindicate Mr. Sanyal’s position).
Whether the Court could properly interfere with decisions of a university body (a domestic tribunal) such as the Syndicate or the University itself.
Whether the Syndicate, in making its decision, improperly took into account extraneous matters (specifically the pendency of suits) and thereby exceeded its statutory powers.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners' Arguments (as presented by Mr. I.P. Mukherjee)

The University's 18 December 1950 letter/decision is illegal, ultra vires and mala fide because the Syndicate and Vice-Chancellor have taken sides in internal school politics and shown partiality to the Someswar Mukherjee committee.
The University wrongly refused to accept the Test Examination held under Mr. Sanyal; the petitioners who passed that Test are therefore entitled to admission to the Matriculation Examination and to the necessary forms.
The reference to pendency of suits in the University’s letter demonstrates consideration of extraneous matters, amounting to an excess of jurisdiction.
The University (and the Someswar Committee) are estopped from challenging acts of Mr. Sanyal, because some acts were ratified by compromise of a suit and otherwise accepted.

Respondent's Arguments (as presented by Mr. A.K. Sen)

The application is defective because the proper respondent should have been the Syndicate, a statutory executive body, rather than the University as a whole.
The petition is bad for non-joinder: Subal Chandra Pal, Ganendra Nath Sanyal and members of the rival committees were not made parties.
The application is not made in good faith and is actually advanced to benefit a third party (Mr. Sanyal), relying on authority in Halsbury.
The Court should not interfere with decisions of domestic tribunals such as the University (relying on R. v. Dunsheath; Ex parte Meredith).

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Kesho Prosad Singh v. Board of Revenue	Mandamus or writ proceedings are inappropriate where title to property or complicated factual questions must be tried; the title will not be tried in mandamus.	The Court relied on this principle to decline deciding the competing claims to control of the school in detail in these proceedings and to leave such questions to the pending suits where evidence can be fully adduced.
In re: Abdul Rasul	Referenced as an additional authority supporting the proposition that mandamus will not try title or complicated factual issues (cited alongside Kesho Prosad Singh).	The Court cited it to reinforce the proposition that it should not try the substantive title dispute between rival committees within the present writ proceeding.
In the Matter of Natesan	Establishes that the Syndicate of a university is amenable to the jurisdiction of the Court and can be compelled to act under section 45 of the Specific Relief Act; the Syndicate members hold public office.	The Court used this authority to reject the submission that the University could not be made respondent and to hold that an application against the University is not necessarily bad because the Syndicate is the body whose acts are challenged; the acts of the Syndicate are the acts of the University.
R. v. Dunsheath. Ex parte Meredith	Authority relied upon to argue that courts should not ordinarily interfere with domestic tribunals (English decision on Visitors/domestic tribunal non-interference).	The Court distinguished it on facts and context: English conditions are materially different, and In the Matter of Natesan shows Syndicate is amenable to judicial review in India; therefore the Dunsheath authority did not bar interference here.
Halsbury (Vol. 9, paragraph 1306)	Authority cited for the proposition that a suit or application may be bad if prosecuted for the benefit of a third party (lack of bona fides).	The Court considered the contention but rejected it, finding the petitioners' principal object was to secure their admission to the examination and that the application was not filed as a vehicle solely for a third party's benefit.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court proceeded by first setting out the statutory and regulatory framework: the University Act and the Syndicate's power to enforce regulations (including Regulation II, Chapter XXX, and Regulation 4 requiring Head Masters of recognised schools to submit candidate applications). The Court then summarized the complex factual chronology concerning the Chakraberia School: its long history, recognition by the University, the constitution(s) of rival managing committees, the charges and purported dismissal of Head Master Ganendra Nath Sanyal, subsequent suits and compromises, elections, and the Syndicate's decision to approve the Someswar Mukherjee Committee.

Applying these facts to law, the Court reasoned that:

When informed that a person purporting to act as Head Master had held a Test Examination and forwarded applications, the Syndicate (charged with ensuring compliance with regulations) was entitled to inquire into the authenticity of that Head Master's status and to decide how to proceed.
The Syndicate had knowledge of the management dispute and had earlier approved the Someswar Committee. Given that context, the Syndicate's decision to recognise the Head Master appointed by the Committee it had approved (and, correspondingly, to treat as acceptable Test Examinations conducted under that recognised authority) fell within its powers and responsibilities.
The Court found no cogent evidence of mala fides, caprice or partiality sufficient to vitiate the Syndicate’s decision. Although the Court acknowledged that the Syndicate's reasons might be rooted in considerations of conduct and practical administrative judgment, absent definite proof of sinister motive the Court refused to overturn the Syndicate’s action on the ground of bad faith.
The contention that the University was estopped from challenging Mr. Sanyal’s acts by reason of the compromise was rejected: the compromise terms were not clear and no clear indication existed that the University accepted Mr. Sanyal's authority to hold the Test Examination.
Procedural objections were addressed: the Court held an application against the University was not automatically defective because the Syndicate was the operative body; the acts of the Syndicate are acts of the University, and non-joinder of other interested persons (including members of rival committees or the Head Masters) was not fatal because this was a writ application seeking relief against the University's decision rather than a regular suit.
The Court accepted the principle that mandamus proceedings are inappropriate for deciding complicated title or management disputes (citing Kesho Prosad Singh and In re Abdul Rasul) and therefore declined to undertake a detailed trial of the competing claims of committee control within the writ proceeding, leaving those issues to pending suits better suited to full evidentiary resolution.
Finally, the Court examined whether the Syndicate's reference to a pending suit in its letter amounted to consideration of an extraneous matter. Given the factual background and the role of the pending litigation as part of the chain of events affecting management authority, the Court held the reference was not extraneous but was a legitimate link in the chain of facts relevant to the Syndicate's assessment.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The petition is dismissed; the Rule is discharged with costs.

Implications and direct effects:

The petitioners did not obtain the relief sought: the Court declined to direct the University to withdraw or recall the 18 December 1950 decision or to compel issuance of forms/admission to the Matriculation Examination on the basis asserted in the petition.
The Court did not undertake or determine the substantive title/management dispute between the rival managing committees of Chakraberia School; those questions remain open and are to be resolved in the pending civil proceedings where full evidence may be adduced.
The decision clarifies (for the facts of this case) that the Syndicate of the University is permitted to act within its administrative discretion to determine which authority at a school is proper for transmitting Test Examination results and candidate lists, and that such administrative decisions will not be set aside in mandamus unless mala fides, caprice or clear excess of jurisdiction is shown.
No broader new legal precedent was proclaimed by the Court beyond applying existing authorities: the Court relied on established principles (including that mandamus is not for trying title and that the Syndicate’s acts are those of the University) to resolve the application before it.

Solicitors recorded in the opinion: H.N. Dutt & Co. for the Petitioners; Mukherjee & Biswas for the Respondent.

Show all summary ...

The Judgment of the Court was as follows:

1. This is an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution for an order directing the Respondent to withdraw or recall its decision that only such students of Class X of the Chakraberia H.E School, who pass the Test Examination conducted by one Su-bal Chandra Pal, officiating Head Master of the school, and are sent up for the Matriculation Examination in 1951 by him will be admitted to the examination by the University and also for an order on the Respondent calling upon it to issue the necessary forms and take necessary steps for the admission of the Petitioners to the ensuing Matriculation Examination.

2. The Petitioners are two out of 100 students of Class X of a well-known school in South Calcutta, known as Chakraberia High English School, now located at 93, Bakul Bagan Row and 23/1, Chakraberia Road, South. The said school was originally started in 1857 and was run as a Middle English School until the year 1938, when it was converted into a High English School and it was recognised by the Respondent University in terms of the University Act VIII of 1904 as a school entitled to send up candidates for the Matriculation Examination and the students who have passed the Test Examination held by the said school are entitled to sit for such examination. The Respondent University was established and incorporated by Act No. II of 1857, which was passed on the 24th of January, 1857. The object for which the University was established is stated in the preamble of the said Act to be as follows:—

“Whereas for the better encouragement of Her Majesty's subjects of all classes and denominations within the Presidency of Fort William in Bengal and other parts of India in the pursuit of a regular and liberal course of education, it has been determined to establish a University at Calcutta for the purpose of ascertaining by means of examination the persons who have acquired proficiency in different branches of literature, Science and Art and of rewarding them by academical degrees as evidence of their respective attainments and marks of honour proportioned thereunto, etc…”

3. By Act No. VIII of 1904, which came into force on the 1st of September, 1904, the constitution and powers of the Indian Universities including the Respondent University were defined and the Senate of the University was given power to frame regulations for matters relating to the University with the sanction of the Government under section 25 of the said Act including the regulations with regard to conditions to be complied with by schools desiring recognition for the purpose of sending up pupils as candidates for the Matriculation Examination and the conditions to be complied with by candidates for Matriculation Examination whether sent up by recognised schools or not.

4. Pursuant to the said power contained in section 25 aforesaid certain regulations were framed for conducting the Matriculation Examination. In Chapter XXX, Regulation II, it is provided as follows:—

(i) Ordinarily only pupils who have been educated for at least one school year previous to the date of the Matriculation Examination at a school recognised by the Calcutta University for such purpose, shall be admitted to the Matriculation Examination.

5. In regulation 4 it is provided that the Head Masters of recognised schools shall submit to the Controller of Examinations within such date as may be prescribed by the Syndicate the applications of those pupils and private candidates who have passed the Test Examination together with the necessary fees prescribed in regulation 5.

6. It is provided in Chapter X of the Revised School Code sanctioned by the University of Calcutta that cases of late admission of students in the matter of Matriculation class, i.e, cases of first admission after the 15th of February or of admission after the 15th of July, should be reported to the University within a certain time and the University may sanction such late admission if there are exceptional circumstances in support of the application for Sanction.

7. It appears that the case of admission of Petitioner No. 1 to the Chakraberia High English School was a case of late admission but it has been sanctioned by the Respondent University. Petitioner No. 2, however, has been educated in the said school for over one school year previous to the examination due to be held in 1951. Both the Petitioners have passed the Test Examination held by the said school between the 7th and 12th December, 1950, in the usual course and they have been recommended to be sent up for the ensuing Matriculation Examination by the Head Master Sri Ganendra Nath Sanyal. The Petitioners have deposited with the authorities of the said school the necessary fees prescribed by the regulation of the University.

8. After the publication of the result of the Test Examination held on the 7th December, 1950, the Head Master of the school pursuant to the enquiries made by the Controller of Examinations sent a representative to bring from the office of the University the necessary forms required to be filled up by the intending candidates for the Matriculation Examination. The said representative applied for delivery of the forms but no such forms were delivered on the ground that the same had already been delivered to some other person.

9. On the 18th December, 1950, the University through its Assistant Registrar, Mr. P. Banerjee, issued a Notice to Mr. Someswar Mukherjee, the Secretary of the Chakraberia School, to the effect that the University had decided that only such students of Class X the school who passed the Test Examination conducted by Subal Chandra Pal, the officiating Head Master, and are sent up for the Matriculation Examination in 1951 by him will be admitted to the examination by the University. It is stated in the petition that Someswar Prosad Mukherjee is not the Secretary nor is he entitled to function as such and the said Subal Chandra Pal was only a teacher in the school and never was or is the officiating Head Master nor had any right or power to hold any test examination of the school. The case of the Petitioners is that Ganendra Nath Sanyal has been at all material times the Head Master of the said school and the direction or decision by the University given by their Notice of the 18th of December, 1950, is illegal and ultra vires and is mala fide.

10. In order to appreciate this attitude taken up by the Respondent University as expressed in the letter of the 18th of December, 1950, it is necessary to state a few facts about the past activities of the Chakraberia School and the part played by the University in relation thereto. It appears that on the 17th of May, 1947, certain persons including the said Someswar Mukherjee constituted themselves into a Managing Committee of the Chakraberia School under the auspices of the South Suburban School Committee. It may be noted that this committee was constituted not in accordance with Clauses 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Chapter I of the Revised School Code approved and published by the University. According to Clause 10 of Chapter I of the School Code the members of the managing committee other than the Head Master hold office for three years from the date when the composition of the committee is completed by election or nomination. It appears that on the 23rd of December, 1949, certain charges were framed against Ganendra Nath Sanyal, the Head Master, for arrogant, unmannerly and disorderly conduct, particularly insubordination and insult showed to the Managing Committee of the school and for mal-administration of the school, for irregular attendance at school, for failure to keep discipline in the school and for joining the strike of the teachers on the 15th and 16th November, 1949 for non-compliance with the instructions of the Managing Committee and so on. On the 26th of December, 1949, a copy of these charges was sent to the Head Master and he was called upon to submit his explanation to these charges. The Head Master, however, on the 7th of January, 1950 instead of submitting any explanation wrote to the Secretary as follows:—

“With reference to your letter of 26-12-49 forwarding a copy of a resolution of the managing committee, dated the 23rd of December last, I beg to inform you that the charges against me are so palpably unfounded and flimsy that they need no explanation.”

11. It is thus clear that the Head Master treated the resolution of the Managing Committee with scanty respect. The result was that on the 15th of January, 1950, the services of the Head Master were terminated by a resolution of the Managing Committee. But in spite of such dismissal Mr. Sanyal continued to function as the Head Master being backed by some of his supporters. On the 18th of January, 1950, one Biswa Nath Bagchi was set up by Mr. Sanyal and his supporters to file a suit in the Court of the Fourth Munsiff at Alipore, being suit No. 143 of 1950, against the members of the Someswar Mukherjee Managing Committee including the Head Master Mr. Sanyal. On the 22nd January, 1950, a new Managing Committee was constituted with Mr. R.M Sen, Solicitor, and certain other persons as members thereof, including Mr. Sanyal, the Head Master, and it continued to function as such. On the 31st of March, 1950, the University issued a circular to all the schools for electing committees in terms of the Revised School Code. On the 14th of May, 1950, the election at Chakraberia School was held and the said Ad Hoc Committee formed in January, 1950, was elected as the Managing Committee at such election with Sanyal, the Head Master, as the ex-officio member. On the 21st of May, 1950, the newly elected committee applied to the Syndicate of the University for approval of the Committee. As the University did not communicate their approval or disapproval for some time, reminder was sent to the University. On the 21st of July, 1950, the Syndicate passed a resolution approving the old Committee constituted by Someswar and others and did not approve the new Committee. On the 26th of July, 1950, the suit at Alipore was compromised on certain terms. One of such terms was that the Head Master would render accounts of all receipts and disbursements from 15th January, 1950, supported by vouchers and other papers. Another term was that the salaries drawn by the Head Master and the staff till date would be deemed to have been paid as their salaries. There was a further term that things done by the Head Master in good faith would be ratified. On the 31st of July, 1950, the University by a letter communicated to Someswar Mukherjee that the Vice-Chancellor and the Syndicate desired to inform him that the managing committee constituted on the 14th May, 1950, was not approved of by the University and the old managing committee should continue to function until further orders. As Mr. Someswar Mukherjee asserted his rights to interfere with the management of the school a second suit was filed at the instance of the new committee constituted by R.M Sen and others in the Alipore Court being suit No. 705 of 1950, on the 2nd August, 1950. On the 7th of August, 1950, Mr. Sen, the Secretary of the new committee, wrote to the Registrar of the University enquiring why no approval of the new committee by the University was forthcoming. On the 8th of August, 1950, Mr. Sen received a reply from the Assistant Registrar that his letter was receiving attention. On the 10th of August, Mr. Sen asked for an interview with the Vice-Chancellor and on the 24th of August, he was granted an interview by the Vice-Chancellor. In the meantime on the 11th of August, 1950, certain criminal proceedings under section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code were started before the District Magistrate at the instance of Somesv/ar Mukherjee and his supporters and an ex parte injunction was obtained. But in view of the pendency of the Civil Suit before the Munsiff the injunction made by the District Magistrate was withdrawn by him on the 31st of August, 1950. It appears that thereafter on the 3rd of September, 1950, the general committee of the South Suburban School reelected the old Committee constituted by Someswar Mukherjee and others. On the 7th of September, 1950, the Munsiff granted an interim injunction in the second suit restraining the old committee from interfering with the R.M Sen Committee. On the 11th September, 1950, the District Judge granted a stay of the operation of the injunction order passed by the Munsiff. On the 18th of September, 1950, the University approved of the old Managing Committee re-constituted on the 3rd of September as aforesaid. On the 21st of September, 1950, the Vice-Chancellor wrote a letter to Mr. R.M Sen in reply to a letter written by Mr. Sen to him on the previous date. The learned Vice-Chancellor pointed out that Mr. Sen did not mention before him, on, the date that he had interview with the Vice-Chancellor, the fact that his committee formed on the 14th May, 1950, was not approved by the Syndicate and by the order of the Syndicate the old Committee was allowed to function; and the Vice-Chancellor made it clear that he was not going to override the decision of the Syndicate, and the committee approved by the Syndicate, would function. On the 6th of October, 1950, the University acting upon the complaint received from some teachers of the school to the effect that Mr. Sanyal was still wrongfully interfering with the management of the school, passed a resolution calling upon Mr. Sanyal to show cause by the 10th of November, 1950, why he should not be debarred from working in any school as a teacher. On the same date a third suit was filed at the instance of the R.M Sen Committee in Alipore being suit No. 241 of 1950 and the University was made a party to this suit. It may be noted that the University was not a party to the previous suits. Although the new R.M Sen Committee was not approved by the University and although the University disapproved of the interference with the management of the school by the Head Master, Mr. Sanyal, the latter held a test examination between 7th December, 1950, and 12th December, 1950, in which the Petitioners and certain other students of the school appeared and sat for the examination. On the 12th of December, 1950, Mr. R.M Sen wrote a letter to the University intimating that there was a rumour that the test examination held by Mr. Sanyal, the Head Master, would not be acceptable to the University and pointed out that if that was so then such thing would be most improper. Thereafter it appears that the University issued the Notice, dated the 18th of December, 1950, to the effect that only such students who passed the Test Examination held by Subal Chandra Pal, the officiating Head Master, would be allowed to sit for the Matriculation Examination of the “University to be held in 1951.

12. It is not quite clear as to when this Su-bal Chandra Pal was appointed as Head Master of the school. Mr. Pal has filed an affidavit in these proceedings but he does not mention any date as to when he began to function as Head Master of the school. The paragraphs 9, 15, 17, 22 and 25 of the affidavit of Mr. Banerjee, the Assistant Registrar, leave the matter in a state of utter confusion. He makes conflicting statements as to the date of appointment of Mr. Pal as Head Master in these various paragraphs. This much is clear, however, that before Mr. Pal held the Test Examination on the 18th December, his status as a Head Master was recognised by the University and the Committee approved by the University.

13. It is noticeable that Chakraberia school is not governed in the matter of constitution of the Managing Committee of the school by the Revised School Code but by special rules framed by the General Committee of the South Suburban School. This fact appears from the letter of Mr. Sanyal, dated the 24th of August, 1943, and also from other documents which have been filed in these proceedings before me.

14. It has been contended by Mr. I.P Mukherjee, the learned counsel for the Petitioners, that the facts stated above show clearly that the Vice-Chancellor and the Syndicate have acted mala fide in arriving at the decision expressed in the letter of the 18th December, 1950, and instead of dealing with the situation in a spirit of detachment they have taken sides in matters of party politics and have expressly displayed partiality towards the Committee constituted by Someswar Mukherjee and his supporters.

15. I am unable to view the facts in the light suggested by Mr. Mukherjee. The, Calcutta University is the supreme head of the educational institutions of the State, of West Bengal. The Senate of the University is responsible for framing regulations relating to the conditions to be complied with by schools desiring recognition for the purpose of sending up pupils as candidates for the Matriculation Examination and the conditions to be complied with by candidates for Matriculation whether sent up by recognised schools or not. The Senate has framed regulations. According to Regulation 4 of Chapter XXX the Head Masters of recognised schools have to submit to the Controller of Examinations the applications of pupils and private candidates who have passed the Test Examination together with necessary fees prescribed in Regulation 5. The Syndicate of the University which is vested with the executive government of the University (section 15 of Act VIII of 1904) has to see that the regulations are complied with. If it is brought to the notice of the University that a particular Head Master who has purported to hold a Test Examination and to forward applications of pupils desirous of appearing in the Matriculation Examination is not really the Head Master but somebody else is the Head Master it becomes the duty of the Syndicate to take notice of the fact and to decide the course of action it should pursue in the matter. In the present case the University was kept informed about the course of events happening in the school. The Syndicate had granted its approval to the Someswar Committee and so it knew which Committee was the validly constituted Committee and which not. Before the reconstitution of the Someswar Committee on the 3rd September, 1950, this Someswar Committee was functioning as the Managing Committee since 17th May, 1947. It was this Committee which had dismissed the Head Master Mr. Sanyal on the 15th January, 1950. The Committee formed by Mr. R.M Sen and his supporters on the 14th May, 1950, had not been approved by the Syndicate. Having been in possession of all the facts the Syndicate decided to recognise the Head Master, who came to be in office by virtue of an appointment made by the proper Managing Committee. I do not see anything capricious or malicious or any want of good faith in the action of the Syndicate or the Vice-Chancellor. Under Rule 6 of the Revised School Code, the Constitution of the Committees of all schools shall be subject to the approval of the Syndicate which retains the power in special cases or classes of cases to approve of committees efficiently discharging their duties, although not constituted in accordance with the rules of the revised code. The Someswar Mukherjee Committee was approved by the Syndicate pursuant to this rule. It may be that Mr. Someswar Mukherjee whose conduct as an Examiner was censured by the Investigation Committee appointed by the Chancellor of the University should not have received the support of the Syndicate but it appears that for some reason or other the Syndicate has readily extended its support to Mr. Someswar Mukherjee and his supporters when they asked for such support. It may be that the reason was that Mr. Mukherjee had some hold or influence on the Syndicate or it may be that the Syndicate viewed the conduct of Mr. Sanyal as to his insubordination and insult to the Managing Committee and of his joining the teachers' strike with such disapproval that the Syndicate thought it prudent to leave the management of the school even in the hands of Committee formed by Someswar Mukherjee and his group rather than leave it in the hands of Jnanendra Nath Sanyal and his group. It is not within the province of this Court, however, to speculate as to the real reasons and in the absence of definite proof, I am unable to come to any finding that the conduct of the Syndicate or the Vice-Chancellor in arriving at the decision as embodied in the letter of the 18th December, 1950, was tainted with any sinister motive or with want of good faith.

16. It was contended by Mr. I.P Mukherjee that the acts of Mr. Sanyal having been ratified by the Someswar Committee by the compromise of the suit at Alipore and being otherwise accepted by the said Committee as also by the University, the University and the Someswar Committee are estopped from challenging the validity of the acts of Mr. Sanyal including his act of holding the test examination. I am unable to accept the contention. The terms of compromise in the first suit are far from clear and I do not find in the conduct of the University any indication that the University accepted Mr. Sanyal as the Head Master properly in office or that he had the right or authority to hold the Test Examination of the school. Moreover, it is an elementary principle that estopped does not furnish any cause of action.

17. Beyond making the remarks aforesaid which, I think, are sufficient to dispose of this application I do not propose to enter into any detailed investigation as to the title or respective rights of the Someswar Mukherjee Committee or the R.M Sen Committee with regard to their control and management of the school. I understand that there is a suit pending in which such questions are intended to be agitated and adjudicated upon. It may be that when the parties have adduced all the evidence in their possession, both oral and documentary, some facts will come to light which will make it more easy for the Court to come to a definite finding on the issues involved in the case. I want to make it clear that the observations made by me in this application are made for the limited purpose of deciding this application and I am not deciding the title or rights of the two rival Committees who are not parties to this application and such questions are left open

18. It has been stated in Kesho Prosad Singh v. Board of Revenue(1) which was an Original Side matter decided by a Bench of two Judges that “It is an elementary principle that the title to property will not be tried in mandamus proceedings, and the writ will not issue when it is necessary to try or decide complicated or extended questions of fact.”

19. Although this proposition is based on some American decisions it appears to me to be a sound and salutary principle and I see no reason to differ from it. [See also In re: Abdul Rasul(2).]

20. It was contended by Mr. A.K Sen, the learned Counsel for the Respondent University that the application is defective in as much as the proper Respondent should have been the Syndicate whose acts and authority are challenged in these proceedings and not the University of Calcutta which is a wider body of which the Syndicate is only a part or a member.

21. It may be noted that in the case of In the Matter of Natesan(3) it was pointed out that the Syndicate being a statutory body vested with the executive government of the University the persons constituting it become ipso facto holders of a public office and can be proceeded against by an application under section 45 of the Specific Relief Act (page 143). In that case it was the Syndicate which was proceeded against and the application against the Syndicate succeeded. The case is, however, no authority for the proposition that any application for the issue of prerogative writs against the University which is a body corporate and a statutory body and which is responsible for the acts of the Syndicate is necessarily bad. The acts of the Syndicate are the acts of the University and I do not think that the application is to be thrown out on this highly technical ground although no doubt the appropriate thing would have been to proceed against the Syndicate whose specific acts are complained of in these proceedings. In clause (1) of Act II of 1857 it is provided that the University of Calcutta “in such name shall sue and be sued, implead and be impleaded and answer and be answered unto in every court of justice.” It was also contended by Mr. A.K Sen although this point is not taken in the affidavit on behalf of the Respondent University that the application is bad as Subal Chandra Pal, Jnanendra Nath Sanyal and the members of the rival committees have not been made parties to these proceedings. I do not think that there is much force in this contention. The Petitioners are aggrieved by the act or decision of the University and their object is to compel the University to do certain acts which they think they are entitled to demand performance of from the University. This is not a regular suit, and merely because certain questions will have to be determined incidentally in giving or not giving the reliefs asked for in this application does not make each and every person interested in such questions as necessary parties to these proceedings. It may be noted that though Mr. Sanyal and Mr. Pal are not formally parties to these proceedings they have filed affidavits in these proceedings. I hold that the application is not defective by reason of non-joinder of the members of the two managing committees or Mr. Sanyal and Mr. Pal as parties to these proceedings.

22. It was further contended by Mr. A.K Sen that the application is not made in good faith but for an indirect pur- pose. It is really made on behalf of some third party, vis., Jananendra Nath Sanyal. Mr. Sen relies on Halsbury, Vol. 9, paragraph 1306, in support of his contention. This argument of Mr. Sen appears to me to be without substance. One of the objects of this application is no doubt to get a decision as to the status of Mr. Sanyal as Head Master of the school and as to the validity or otherwise of the constitution of the two rival committees squabbling for power and control over the management of the school but I do not think that that is the whole object of this application. The Petitioners' first and foremost object is to get themselves and some of their fellow students allowed to appear at the ensuing Matriculation Examination and incidentally to have the other questions decided. There are suits pending in which the status of Mr. Sanyal and Mr. Pal and the question of the validity of the constitution of the two rival committees are directly and substantially in issue. The Petitioners' cause of action, if any, if I may be allowed to use that expression, has arisen after the filing of the third suit by reason of the decision of the Syndicate embodied in the letter of the 18th December, 1950 and as they are vitally affected by the said decision they have moved this Court for speedy redress of their grievances. I am unable to hold, therefore, that the application is for the benefit of third party or is not actuated by good faith.

23. It was also contended by Mr. Sen that the Court has no power to interfere with decisions of domestic tribunals such as the University of Calcutta and reliance is placed on the decision in R. v. Dunsheath. Ex parte Meredith(4). The conditions prevailing in England differ materially from the conditions prevailing in this country. The system of Visitors obtaining in England is not prevalent in India. It has been held in clear and unambiguous terms in In the Matter of Natesan that the Syndicate of the University is amenable to the jurisdiction of the Court and it is compellable to do acts which it is enjoined to do by statute by an application under section 45 of the Specific Relief Act. This contention of Mr. Sen must, therefore, be rejected.

24. Mr. I.P Mukherjee has contended that the letter of the 18th December, 1950, shows that the Syndicate or the Vice-Chancellor in arriving at the decision as embodied in that letter has taken into consideration extraneous matters and has thus exceeded the jurisdiction conferred by the Statutes and the Regulations framed thereunder. The only ground disclosed in the letter for arriving at the decision is the pendency of a suit. It is not at all clear from the letter itself what the Syndicate or the Vice-Chancellor wanted to convey by referring to the pending suit and how far they actually made this fact the ground of their decision as expressed in the letter. The laconic language employed in the letter whether it was intentional or unintentional, makes it difficult for this Court to form any definite opinion on the point. But if the language of this letter is considered in the background of all the facts that have been set out in the earlier part of this judgment, the matter of reference to the pending suit cannot in my view be considered really as an extraneous matter. It is a link in the chain of events and the Syndicate or the University could not possibly or properly ignore it or belittle the importance of it. The decisions cited by Mr. Mukherjee turned on their special facts and are distinguishable from the facts of the present case.

25. In my view the Syndicate or the University was quite competent to come to the decision complained of and it has act-ed within the four corners of the powers committed to it by the Statutes and the Regulations.

26. I am further unable, to hold, as indicated already, that the Syndicate or the University has acted mala fids.

27. In the result the petition fails and the Rule must be discharged with costs.

28. Solicitors: H.N Dutt and Co. for the Petitioners; Mukherjee and Biswas for the Respondent.