3 f^W^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0. 2,3 4 (2/2003 PETITIONER National Institute ofEducation through its Director Ku. Sandhya Pathak, D/o Late Shri N.C.Pathak, aged 36 yeais, Occupation-Director, R/o Mohan Nagar, Durg (C.G.) -VERSUS. RESPONDENTS .<%..<<^ ^^^^' .-^^ ^\ /-••• ^ (%\ '•'^\4 ^ f'y'' •sy 1. State of Chhattisgarh through its Secretary, Department of Revenue, D.K.S-Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Collector, Durg (C.G.) 3. Additional DistrictMagtstrate, Durg (C.G.) 4. Additional Collector, Durg (C.G.) 5. Branch M anager, Canara Bank, Branch, Durg (C.G.) 6. Mrs. Pramod Popli, aged 51 years, R/o430,2aiFloor,Kohat Enclave, Pitam Pura, Dslhi- 110034. 7. M s. Yashu Sayal, aged 28 years, R/o H-135, Ashok Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi-110052. 8. Mrs. Anita Yadav, aged about 39 years, R/o C/o Col. B.S.Yadav, Room No. 300 'A' Wing, Sena Bhavan, New Delhi-110011. WRIT UNDER ARTICLE 22(^27 Ot THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A SUITABLE WMLORDERS OR DIRECTION. / 1,C HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR S.B. : HOWBLE SHRI MANNDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, J. PETITIONER Writ Petltion No.2340 of 2003 National Institute of Education fhrough its Director Ku. Sandhya Pathak RESPONDBNTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Ore. Petltion u/Article 226/227 ofthe Constitution oflndia Appearance: Shri Sameer Shrivastava, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State/respondents No. 1 to 4. Shri Dhrraj Kumar Wankhede, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri Radhakrishna Gupta, counsel for respondent No.S-Bank. None for other respondents. ORAL- ORDER (Passed on 22.02.2011) 1. Though fhis petition was listed for orders on I.A. No.2, application for urgent hearing, considering the nature of dispute involved, with the consent of leamed counsel appearing for fhe parties, tfae matter is heard finallv. 2. By this petition, fhe petitioner has called in question correctness and vaUdity of commnnication dated 7.6.2003 (Annexure P-12) issued by respondent No.5/Bank, by which the petitioner has been informed that as per the order dated 6.6.2003 of fhe I \11 -2- ^"r''" Additional CoUector, Di-irg, petitioner's accoLint has been attached and ,that no withdrawals will be pemiitted without prior pennission of the said aufhority. 2. Briefly stated, case of fhe petitioner is fhat the petitioner is an educational institution, which is running correspondence coi.irses as well as regular courses i-mder distance education scheme in the name styled as "National Institute of Education". The petitioner-institution issued advertisement inviting appUcations for admission to B.Ed. course and other correspondences courses m various newspapers on different dates and in response to sald advertisement, nnmber of applications tncludtng applications of respondents No. 6, 7 & 8 were also received and their admissions were processed upon payment of requisite fee. The petitioner- institution holds an account in Canara Bank, DLirg under A/c No. 1079 for operation of its funds. On 27.5.2003, the petitioner- institution received a memo issued from the office of CoUector- cmn-District Magistrate, Durg seeking information with regard to the affiliation of the petitioner-institution, Registration Certincate, Bank Accounts etc. The petitioner-institution complied with the said direction and submitted requisite mformation vide Annexure P-11. Thereafter, on 4.6.2003, respondent No.S/Additional District Magistrate, Durg called the petitioner with the records and fhe documents of registration, afiiliation were examined. On 6.6.2003, the Director ofthe petitioner-institution was required to appear in the office of the Coflector, Durg and when the Director -3- appeared, he was directed to refund fhe fee received by fhe institute from respondents No. 6, 7 8s 8. Thereafter, on 7.6.2003, the Branch Manager of respondent-Bank has issued fhe impugned commuiiication in compliance of the order dated 6.6.2003 ofthe Additional CoUector, Dui^. 3. Submission of leamed counsel for fhe petitioner-institute is that the action on the part of respondent-Bank in attaching the account of the petitioner-institution at the instructions/order of respondent No.S/Additional Collector is Ulegal and without jurisdiction and authority of law. It is also submitted fhat fhe respondent No.3 does not have aufhority under fhe law to issue such a direction of attachment of petitioner's account. He submits that tf any complaint is received by respondent No.3 with regard to fhe petitioner-institution, respondent No.3 was obliged under the law to send fhe complaint for enquiry before the competent authority, which could enquire into the aBiliation or recognition of the petitioner-institution and take action ta accordance with law. He furfher submits fhat though various enquires were made and records of the institution were summoned, no notice was given by respondent No.3 before proposmg to attach fhe account of fhe petitioner-instituUon. Referring to fhe commimication dated 6.6.2003, which has been placed on record by respondents 1 to 4 as Annexure R-4, he submits that the contents of fhe said document show that such a direction for attachment was issued by fhe Additional Collector, Durg tn the light of certatn complaints made against the petitioner-tnstitution. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submits that in fhe absence of there being any order eiftier by fhe National Council of Teacher Education or by any other authority competent under the law, to enquire into titie validity of recognition/afiiliation of the institution, the action of respondents No.3 & 5 in attaching fhe Bank account and compeUtng the petitioner-institution to seek prior approval of respondent No.3 before operating the account, has no saiiction of law. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4/State submits fhat there were serious compliant against the petitioner-institution that fhe institution is being run wifhout proper recognition and affiliation, as required under various laws. A compliant was received in the ofilce of the Collector (Armexure R-2), whereafter, the Additional District Magistrate reqi-iired the petitioner-institution to submit necessary information with regard to its afSliation/recognition ete. Considering the reply of fhe petitioner-institution, wherein, fhe petitioner-institution categorically mentioned that Shri Rawatpiu-a Sarkar Intemational University has withdrawn affiliation in respect of fhe management coi-irses and that fhe petitioner-institution had no afiiliation with the University in so far as B.Ed. course is concemed, yet fhe petitioner-institution had proceeded to issue advertisement inviting appUcations and recovering money, a letter was issued on 6.6.2003 to the Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Durg. He 1/1, -5- submits that aU this has been done by fhe Additional District Magistorate to maintain the law and order situation which might anse on account of the advertisement issued by fhe petitioner.- institution. Thereafter, on 4.7.2002, the CoUector has referred the matter to the Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Govt. of Chhattisgarh. He submits that such institutions are runnins various courses without due affiliation, authorization aad recognition and fherefore, fhe Collector has acted in public tnterest. He further submits that fhere is no absolute ban on operation of fhe petitioner's bank account, but, aU fhat has been ^&ted is that such operation should not be permitted wlthout the prior approval of fhe concemed autfaorily. 5. Leamed counsel for respondent No.5-Bank submitted that it has issued impugned communication to the petitioner-institution ta view of fhe duiection issued by fhe Additional Collector on 6.6.2003 (Annexure R-4) and (herefore, the action is just and proper. 6. From the pleadings of the parties and fhe submissions made by leamed counsel for the petitioner as well as respondents, it appears fhat upon receipt of certain complaint with regard to fhe recognition, affiliation of the petitioner-institution to run certain courses including B.Ed. course, the Additional Collector issued memo on 6.6.2003 (Annexure R-4). On the basis of such memo, the Bank has issued the letter to the petitioner-institution on -6- ,-/) 7.6.2003 imposing ban on operation of account stating that the same could be operated only after prior approval of the AdditionaJ. Collector. Even though fhe petitioner-institution has veiy specifically raised an issue with regard to fhe aufhority of the respondent-CoUector to pass such an order of conditional attachment of fhe Bank account of fhe petitioner, statmg that the same is devoid of aufhority under fhe law, leamed counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4 in fheir retum have fafled to disclose the provision of law ixnder which such action has been taken and order of conditional attachment issued on 6.6.2003 to the Bank. Whefher fhe petitioner-mstitution is liable for any action on the complatnt against the institution, is one matter. However, I find it difficult to sustain the action of respondent-Collector in issuin^ such a dtrection to the Bank and the Baak in tum imposing a ban on operation of the accounts of ftie petitioner. It is not a case that on some FIR lodged against fhe petitioner, the police authorities have invoked their power to attach fhe account under the provision of anv law for fhe time being in force. No provision of law could be referred to by leamed counsel for the State- respondents to justiiv the action of fhe respondent-Collector in unposing such a ban on the petitioner-institution. Even otherwise, it appears tfaat on the basis of certain complatnt, fhe memo dated 6.6.2003 was written by Collector to the Bank. Even tUl now, there is no material placed on record to show that any -7- competent authority has taken any action against the petitioner - tnstitution or any criminal case has been registered against fhem. 7. In this view of fhe matter, in fhe opuiion of fhis Conrt, the action of respondent No.3 in directing the Bank to impose operation of Bank accoiint on certatn conditions, appears to be without authority and sanction of law. Therefore, the memo dated 7.6.2003 (Annexure P-12) issued by fhe Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Durg is set aside 8s memo dated 6.6.2003 (Annexure R-4) issued by fhe Addl. CoUector/ Addl. District Magistrate, Durg is declared Ulegal. 8. It is made clear that this Court has not examined as to whether a competent authority could take action against fhe petitioner nor this Court has coinmented upon fhe criininal liability of the petitioner-institution ui a cnminal case, if any, pending against thein. This order shaU not stand tn the way of the competent authorities in taking action against the petitioner-institution. 9. Petition is accordingly allowed to the extent and in the matter indicated above. _____— Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge