1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR J U D G M E N T Managing Committee Shri Dadu Mahavidyalaya & Chhatrawas Vs. State of Rajasthan & others. S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.592/2009. UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CPC. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 7th October, 2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.P.PATHAK Mr. R.B. Mathur for the appellant. BY THE COURT: This civil second appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed against the order dated 29th September, 2009 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.5, Jaipur city, Jaipur in Civil Regular First Appeal No.8/2009 (185/2009) by which the appeal of the appellant-plaintiff against the order dated 20th August, 2009 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) & Judicial Magistrate, First Class No.2, Jaipur city, Jaipur by which the trial court allowed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and rejected the suit filed by the plaintiff holding that the trial court had no jurisdiction in the matter. Heard learned counsel for the appellant on admission. 2 Briefly stated the facts for the disposal of the present second appeal are that the plaintiff appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction in the trial court. It was alleged in the suit that the appellant is the Managing Committee of Shri Dadu Mahavidyalaya & Chhatrawas, Moti Doongari Road, Jaipur. The members of the managing committee were elected and they took charge to manage the affairs of the institution as per the bye-laws. It was also averred that the plaintiff institution was a government aided institution and subsequently the government started reducing the aid on the ground of financial stringency and it became difficult for the managing committee to run the institution and to make payment of salaries of the employees. It was also averred that some false complaints were sent to the respondents regarding not properly functioning of the managing committee. The respondents without examining properly the complaints issued show cause notice to Sarpanch of the managing committee and to appoint Administrator to manage the affairs of the plaintiff institution. It was also averred that a writ petition bearing no.6546/2004 was filed earlier for release of the out-standing amount of Rs.39,74,000/- which was also not released in spite of the orders of the court and for that matter a contempt petition has been filed. It was also averred that the respondents have issued notice on 15.2.2008 of their institution to appoint Administrator on flimsy grounds. A prayer was made to restrain 3 the respondent-defendants not to interfere in the management and affairs of the institution which is being run by the managing committee. A written statement was filed wherein objection regarding maintainability of the suit was taken for two reasons; firstly no notice was served as required under section 80 CPC, and secondly for the reason that jurisdiction of the civil court was barred under the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (in short referred to as, 'the Act of 1989'). An application was also filed separately under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC by the defendants to reject the plaint as the civil court had no jurisdiction in the matter to try the suit. A reply thereto was filed wherein it was alleged that under the Act of 1989, remedy is not available to the plaintiff, therefore, the civil court was competent to try the suit. The learned trial court vide its order dated 20.8.2009 accepted the application moved by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for the reason that the court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The appeal preferred came to be dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on 29.9.2009. Hence, the present second appeal has been filed. It has been the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the order of the trial court is without jurisdiction. It is also contended that the civil court had the jurisdiction to try the suit because no redressal is available 4 under the Act of 1989. It is also contended that the elected members of the committee cannot be restrained from discharging their function according to the bye-law of the institution. It is also contended that on the basis of false and frivolous complaint, a notice was issued. It is also contended that the matter requires consideration after framing of issues in the matter. I have considered the submissions made before me. In the present matter, the points which require consideration are as under: (i) Whether the trial court committed illegality in accepting the application moved by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC? (ii) Whether the appellate court has not correctly appreciated the legal provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure while dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant? Since, point nos. 1 and 2 are inter-related to each other, they are being decided together. It is to be seen as to whether the respondent was competent to issue notice to the appellant for appointment of administrator. Section 10 of the Act of 1989 clearly indicates that the State Government has authorised the authorities under the Act of 1989 to take proper action in case it is found that the 5 managing committee of different institutions are not discharging their functions properly or they are neglecting in discharge of their functions then the State Government can appoint administrator to manage the affairs of the institution. This section further provides that if it is found subsequently that the management of the institution is required to be managed by the managing committee then the original position is to be restored. Thus, there is n o difficulty in reaching to the conclusion that the act of the respondent to issue notice to show cause to supersede the managing committee cannot be said to be illegal and improper. It is the function of the authorities appointed under the Act of 1989 to take proper action in the matter when it is brought to their notice that in an institution managing committee is not discharging its function properly or is negligent in discharge of its function. Section 27 of the Act of 1989 clearly indicates that the civil court jurisdiction is barred. If that be so, in the above factual aspect, I do not find any illegality committed by the trial court while accepting the application moved by the defendant and also I do not find any illegality committed by the learned appellate court while dismissing the appeal. The show cause notice was given under the provisions of the Act of 1989. It is not desirable to comment upon the merits or demerits of the case because that may in any manner prejudice the case of either side. It is 6 suffice to say that there does not appear any illegality in the impugned order passed by the courts below. In view of the fore-going discussion, answer to the point nos. 1 and 2 is accordingly and there being no substantial question involved in present matter, the appeal is liable to be dismissed summarily. In the result, this second appeal is dismissed. (S.P.PATHAK) J. bblm