Gitesh Ranjan Bhattacharjee, J.@mdashThe petitioner claiming himself to be the recognised Founder-Principal and ex-officio Secretary of the
Kabitirtha College (at Subhas Nagar. Bongaon) affiliated to the Rabindra Bharati University, has filed the writ petition praying for various
directions including the direction upon the respondents State and University authorities to act in terms of the order dated 11 -1-95 of a Division
Bench of this Court comprising M.G. Mukherjee and Vidya Nand. JJ. in F.M.A.T. No. 49 of 1995 and also for recognising the Kabitirtha College
and for supplying registration and examination forms and making arrangement for salary of the petitioner and other teaching and non-teaching staff
of the college from the University Grants Commission and also for direction upon the Scheduled Castes Welfare Authorities to grant Scheduled
Castes stipends to the Scheduled Castes students of the college, etc. Subsequently, during the pendency of this writ petition the petitioner also filed
another application for directing the Scheduled Castes and Tribes Welfare Authorities not to make any grant of Schedules Castes stipends to the
''so-called self-styled Kabitirtha College at Bakshipally''. It may be noted here that during the pendency of the writ petition the authorities of the
Kabitirtha College at Bakshipally were also added as respondents in this writ petition. Initially Rabindra Bharati University granted affiliation to the
Institution Kabitirtha situated at Subhaspally far Two Years Junior Diploma Course in Vocal Music. Dance and Drama from the session 1976-77
subject to fulfillment of certain conditions mentioned in the letter of affiliation. The writ petitioner Pinaki Ranjan Bharati was the founder-Principal
and ex-officio Secretary of the said institution at that time. Subsequently in 1984 a breakaway group of persons of that institution started running
the institution Kabitirtha at a different location, namely, at Bakshipally of the same town Bongaon. Both groups, namely, the one headed by Pinaki
Ranjan Bharati running the college at Subhaspally and the other running the college at Bakshipally in the same name Kabitirtha claimed their
respective colleges as the one affiliated to the Rabindra Bharati University in view of the affiliation earlier granted by the said university in 1976 As
a sequel to such dispute between the rival claimants Pinaki Ranjan Bharati instituted a civil suit being Title Suit No. 32/1985 of the Second Court
of Assistant Judge. Alipore against Sidheswar Biswas and others who were running the college at Bakshipalry. In that suit the plaintiff''s Pinaki
Ranjan Bharati and others mainly challenged the authority of the defendants to run the college at Bakshipally in the name of Kabitirtha and prayed
for declaration that the college Kabitirtha run by the plaintiff''s (at Subhaspally) was the college affiliated with the Rabindra Bharati University and
the plaintiff''s were entitled to run the same and that the defendants had no right or authority to represent the said college or to run any college
under the name and style of Kabitirtha. Further declaration was also prayed for in the said suit that the meeting held in January. 1984 was void and
the Governing Body formed by the defendants in the said meeting was not a legally constituted Governing Body and as such the said Governing
Body had no right to represent the said college Kabitirtha. The suit was contested by the defendants, namely, the authorities of the college
Kabitirtha run at Bakshipally. During the pendency of the said T.S. No. 32/1985 the Registrar of Rabindra Bharati University wrote a letter dated
the 9th April 1985 to Pinaki Ranjan Bharati and Siddeswar Biswas staring that in view of the pendency of T.S. No. 31/1985 they were to bring
proper order of the court as to who was authorised to control and manage the affairs of Kabitirtha. It was also stated in the said letter that the
University would provide all necessary reliefs to such person having legal entity. After a contested hearing the decision of the trial court in said Tide
Suit No. 32/1985 however went against the plaintiff Pinaki Ranjan Bharati and the suit was dismissed. After elaborate discussion the trial court
held that the defendants had been able to prove that the college was actually shifted from Subhaspally to Bakshipally. The trial court also held that
the plaintriffs failed to prove that they formed any Governing Body properly on 18 10 84 and that any such Committee of the plaintiff''s worked for
the college, the court however found that Governing Body constituted in January 1984 (by the defendants) was defective inasmuch as two
nominees of the Rabindra Bharati University were not included. The trial court had also-noted that it could not be said that the defendants had
taken all necessary steps for the proper-constitution of the Governing Body but yet the fact remained that the University allowed the students of the
college to sit for the examination and to enjoy all the amenities given by the Rabindra Bharati University. Accordingly the trial court observed that
the matter was absolutely left with the University authorities to take a decision on the point of approval of the Governing Body formed in January
1984 by the defendants, the suit was however, as already noted, dismissed as the court concluded that the plaintiff''s had no case in the suit It may
be noted here that the suit was dismissed by the court of Assistant District Judge. Alipore on 11 -7-86. PR. Bharati and others then preferred an
appeal against the dismissal of the suit and the learned Additional District Judge. 12th Court, Alipore allowed the appeal in part being Title Appeal
No. 138/1986 by judgment dated 17-12-87. The defendants of the suit them preferred a Second Appeal before the High Court being S. Appeal
No. 520 of 1988 and a Division Bench of this Court comprising S. Ahamed and AM. Sinha. JJ. disposed of the said second appeal by allowing
the same and by setting aside the judgement of the first appeal court, and restored and affirmed the judgement and the decree of the trial court,
namely, the judgement and decree proceed by the Assistant District Judge, Second Court. Alipore, in T.S. No. 32/1985.
2. The decision of the Division Bench in the said second appeal No. 520 of 1988 clined the issue and to view of such decision there is no escape
from the effect and consequences of the judicial conclusion already reached that the college Kabitirtha was shifted from Subhaspally to
Bakshipally. The only defect found in the Governing Body formed by the defendants in January 1984 was that the Rabindra Bharati University was
yet to nominate two members to that Committee. In respect of that matter the trial court in its judgement in T.S. No. 32/1985 left the matter
absolutely with the University authorities to take a decision on the point of approval of the Governing Body farmed to January, 1984 by the
defendants. Therefore what was left for the decision of the University was the question of approval of the Governing Body formed in January 1984
by the defendants. But the fact that the institution at Subhaspally which received the affiliation of the Rabindra Bharati University in 1976 was
shifted to Bakshipally in 1984 was settled by the judicial decision in the said title suit No. 32/1985 as affirmed by the High Court in the second
appeal. Naturally, the decision of the High Court in the second appeal, having gone against P.R. Bharati, he moved a SLP before the Supreme
Court but the Supreme Court was pleased to dismiss the same on 29.1.92. It may be mentioned here that the Division Bench of this Court in the
said second appeal while upholding and affirming the decision of the trial court that the college at Subhaspally had been shifted to Bakshipally also
observed that before the cancellation of affiliation of any institution the management of the institution should be given opportunity of making
representation before the council of the University but since no such steps had been taken by Rabindra Bharati University it might be presumed that
the affiliation had been continuing so far as the college Kabitirtha was concerned. The result was that it was judicially held and affirmed up to that
stage that the college which was initially established at Subhaspally and obtained the affiliation of the University was subsequently shifted to
Bakshipally and was enjoying the affiliation of the Rabindra Bharati University which was originally granted to that institution. This position rather
became affirmed further by reason of the dismissal of the SLP filed by P.R. Bharati in the Supreme Court. We have also seen that the University
authorities also committed themselves to go by the decision of the court regarding the question as to which was the real college Kabitirtha and
which of the rival claimants was in the control and management of the college. Since the decision of the Civil Court on the question went squarely
against P.R Bharati in the civil suit the institution Kabitirtha as run by the defendants at Bakshipally received the recognised status of affiliated
college under the name Kabitirtha and the plaintiff P.R. Bharati had, thereafter, no right to run any college under the style and name of Kabitirtha at
Subhaspally on the basis of the initial affiliation granted by the University in 1976.
3. After the disposal of the said Title Suit No. 32/1985 on 11-7-86 by the trial court the Executive Council of the Rabindra Bharati University in its
meeting hel don 10-9-86, on consideration of the matter and in the background of the said judgement, took the following resolution :
(1) That in view of the non-existence of Kabitirtha at Subhaspally, Bongaon affiliated to the University the same be and is hereby disaffiliated with
immediate effect. A notification in two leading dailies.
One in English and one in Bengali be given to this effect.
(2) That the institution run at Bakshipally, Bongaon is neither an affiliated institution nor a recognised institution and no approval of the council to
the alleged Governing Body of a self-styled institution be accorded.
(3) That in the larger interest of the students, already admitted by the two institutions at Subhaspally and Bakshipally up to the date of admission
allowed by the University, vide the Registrar''s letter dated 31-1-85/4-2-85 as they may be eligible to appear in the respective examination of the
University according to rules, be and are hereby allowed to appear at such examination.
4. This resolution of the Execution Council of the University was not wholly a happy resolution in view of the fact that the trial court had held that
the institute Kabitirtha was shifted from Subhaspally to Bakshipally and had turned down P.R. Bharati''s claim. The obvious import of that decision
was that there could not have been an affiliated institution at Subhaspally any more under the name Kabitirtha. And therefore there was no question
of disaffiliation of the institution Kabitirtha at Subhaspally at that point of time. The further import of the decision in the civil suit was that the
affiliated institution at Subhaspally under the name Kabitirtha having been shifted to Bakshipally, the institution which was being run at Bakshipally
under the name Kabitirtha was enjoying the affiliation originally granted by the University, and therefore in view of the decision in the civil suit and in
view of the earlier commitment of the University to recognise the position that may be decided by court, it was not open to the Executive Council
of the University on 10-9-86 to say that the institution run at Bakshipally was neither an affiliated institution nor a recognised institution. Rather the
institution at Bakshipally at that point of time was required to be treated as an institution enjoying the original affiliation granted by the University. In
its said resolution the Executive Council refused to accord approval to the Governing Body of the institution at Bakshipally on the ground that the
same was not a recognised or affiliated institution. That resolution was however not proper. It is true that the trial court in the civil suit, in view of
the irregularity in the formation of the Governing Body of the institution at Bakshipally by reason of not having two nominees of the University
therein, granted liberty to the University to take a decision regarding approval of the Governing Body is something different from the recognition or
affiliation of the institution. The University was given the liberty by the court to take decision regarding the approval of the Governing Body of the
institution but the question of recognition or affiliation of the institution at Bakshipally was not open to be decided by the University at that point of
time because the University had already committed itself by a letter written by the Registrar, as we have seen, that they would go by the decision of
the court. Indeed the University was at liberty to take decision regarding the approval of the Governing Body of the college at Bakshipally but
contrary to the decision of the Civil Court they were not free to say that they would not recognise the college at Bakshipally. Indeed they were free
to take action in accordance with law for de-recognition and disaffiliation of the said college if there were valid reason for taking such action but
they did not take any such action and instead took a resolution on 10-9-86 as noted above.
5. The action taken by the University pursuant to that resolution dated 10-9-86 was however challenged, for obvious reasons, by the authorities of
the college at Bakshipally by filing a writ petition, but P.R. Bharati did not take any steps against the same, Civil Order No. 11649(W) of 1986
which was filed by the authorities of the college at Bakshipally was disposed of by U.C. Banerjee, J. on 16th September, 1986 where in the
learned Judge observed thus:
Since the University has already taken a decision in passing an order of disaffiliation of the Kabitirtha College at Subhaspally and since the
University has further taken a view that the institution run at Bakshipally is neither an affiliated institution nor a recognised institution and no
approval of the Council to a self-styled Institution could be granted, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter and pass any order on this
application. As such this application fails and is dismissed. But the writ petitioner would be at liberty to take steps or steps in accordance with law
as may be advised.
6. The said order also contained inter alia a further observation as follows:
The University is further directed to serve copy of the notice of disaffiliation together with copy of the resolution of the Executive Council of
Rabindra Bharati University dated the 10th September, 1986 on the learned Advocate for the writ petitioner by this week.
7. It has been argued by the learned Advocate for the writ petitioner P.R. Bharati that the said order of U.C. Banerjee, J.'' dated the 16th
September, 1986 has not been set aside and in that order the learned Judge has held that the institution at Bakshipally is neither an affiliated
institution nor a recognised institution and as such the same is binding on all concerned. In my opinion, it is not correct to say that in the order dated
16th September, 1986 U.C. Banerjee J. had recorded any judicial finding that Bakshipally institution is neither an affiliated institution nor a
recognised institution, etc, A plain reading of that order would show that what the learned Judge recorded in the said order in that context was not
the finding of the court but only the recital of the relevant part of the resolution of the Executive Council of the University without however entering
into the merit or validity of the said resolution. It would rather appear that the learned Judge gave liberty to the authorities or the Bakshipally
institution to take steps in accordance with the law and a copy of the resolution of the Executive Council dated the 10th September, 1986 was also
directed to be served on the learned Advocate for the Bakshipally College authorities. It would next appear that thereafter the authorities of the
Bakshipally college moved a writ petition being CO. No. 13247 (W) of 1986 which was dismissed by U.C. Banerjee, J. on 7th November, 1986
with the observation inter alia that the writ court was not the proper forum for the purpose of adjudication of the grievances of the writ petitioner.
There was an appeal against that order of the learned Judge before a Division Bench and that appeal was disposed of by a Division Bench
consisting of B.P. Banerjee and A.K. Chakraborty. JJ. on 9th June, 1993. The Division Bench did not sustain the order of the learned trial Judge
and observed that the writ application was bound to succeed to the extent that the affiliation of the institution ''Kabitirtha'' was still continuing and
the University must recognise the said institution as an affiliated institution, but that was without prejudice to the rights of the University as the
University was entitled to take any decision under the power conferred upon the University in accordance with the law. The Division Bench in the
said writ appeal being No. 1130 of 1992, in disposing of the same, also took into consideration the earlier decision of the Division Bench in S.A.
No. 520 of 1988 which restored and affirmed the decision of the learned Assistant District Judge in the civil suit between the writ petitioner
(plaintiff) and the Bakshipally College Authorities (defendants). The Division Bench in the writ appeal also observed that the dispute had been set
at rest and the SLP filed by P.R. Bharati before the Supreme Court had also failed as a result of which the Division Bench judgment of this Court
in S.A. 520 of 1988 reached its finality. Accordingly the Division Bench in the said writ appeal observed that the court had no hesitation in
directing the University to take steps in terms of the said judgement inasmuch as admittedly no opportunity was given to the appellants (that is, the
Bakshipally College authorities) before passing the order of disaffiliation. The Division Bench in the writ appeal thus (expressly recognised the
position that the institution Kabitirtha could not be disaffiliated without giving due opportunity to the appellants, that is the authorities of the
institution at Bakshipally, to make representation in the matter. It was also observed by the Division Bench in the writ appeal that the judgement of
the Division Bench in the second appeal was binding upon the writ court and it must be held that the affiliation of the said institution had not been
validity revoked, cancelled or suspended and the same was still continuing. This judgement of the Division Bench in the writ appeal therefore does
root purport to say anything which might be contrary to the decision in the civil litigation that was fought up to the Supreme Court. The Division
Bench in the writ appeal left the matter to the University to take appropriate action for disaffiliation of the College in the appropriate manner. But
the fact remains, in view of the finality of the matter as attained in the civil litigation, that the affiliated college which was initially functioning at
Subhaspally had been shifted to Bakshipally in 1984 and the Subhaspally authorities thereafter were not the proper authorities of the said affiliated
college which had been shifted to Bakshipally. If any action for disaffiliation of the affiliated college Kabitirtha I was required to be taken that had
to be taken obviously with reference to use Bakshipally College and the disaffiliation matter had got nothing to do with the institution which might
have been functioning at Subhaspally even after the shifting of the institution to Bakshipally in 1984.
8. It appears that in the background of the two Division Bench decisions, one in the second appeal in connection with the civil litigation being S.A.
No. 520 of 1988 and the other in F.M.A. No. 1130 of 1992 dated the 9th June, 1993 passed in the writ appeal the Rabindra Bharati University
obtained on 16-7-93 opinion of their learned senior Advocate in the matter. Thereafter the Rabindra Bharati University appointed one Dr. Ranjit
Kr. Mitra as the administrator of Kabitirtha on 25-3-94. The said Dr. Ranjit Kr. Mitra was also directed by the Registrar of the University by
letter dated the 30th March 1994 to cause inspection of the two colleges and submit report on the points mentioned in the Registrar''s Letter. A
copy of that letter was also forwarded for information and necessary action to Pinaki Ranjan Bharati describing him as the Principal, Kabitirtha
(Subhasnagar). It also appears that on 15-4-94 the administrator Dr. Ranjit Kr. Mitra addressed a letter to Pinaki Ranjan Bharati describing him
as Principal, Kabitirtha College. Kabita Nagar (that is. Subhaspally). In that letter it was stated that Dr. Mitra was appointed administrator of
Kabitirtha (Subhaspally) by the Vice-Chancellor of the Rabindra Bharati University and Dr. Mitra accordingly assumed charge of the
administration of college in presence of Shri Pinaki Ranjan Bharati, the Principal of the college. Copy of that letter was also forwarded to the Vice-
Chancellor and the Registrar of the University. The learned Advocate for P.R. Bharati, the petitioner in the present writ petition lays great emphasis
on this development that an administrator was appointed by the University for Kabitirtha and the said administrator took charge of the
administration of the college at Subhaspally as administrator from Pinaki Ranjan Bharati, the Principal of the college and this clinches the issue as to
which one is the real college Kabitirtha and who are authorities of the same. In my opinion however the position is not really so. In view of the
decision in the civil suit as affirmed up to the Supreme Court and in view of the decision of the Division Bench in the writ appeal as discussed
earlier the University had no option but to treat the college at Bakshipally as the one which was carrying affiliation in view of the original affiliation
granted while the college, before its shifting, was located at Subhaspally, Of course, in view of the judicial decisions referred to above the
University authorities were at liberty to take steps for disaffiliation of the college in accordance with law if such action was warranted, but they
were not free to treat at that point of time the college which was being run at Subhaspally by P.R Bharati as the affiliated college.
9. Naturally therefore the appointment of Dr. P.K. Mitra by the University as Administrator of Kabitirtha (Subhaspally) was challenged by the
Bakshipally college authorities in a writ petition, as the action taken by the University was indeed a confusing one. In that writ petition Ruma Pal, J.
passed an interim order on 29-4-94. It appears that the University, pursuant to the decision of the Division Bench in the writ appeal dated the 9th
June, 1993 appointed an Inspecting Team consisting of Sri Monoj Mitra and others for inspection of the institution Kabitirtha at Bakshipally and
inspection was made by the said team on 24-5-94 and a report of inspection was prepared on 1-6-94. The Committee in its inspection report
inter alia recorded opinion that the institution should be advised to create satisfactory infrastructure with provisions of facilities as laid down in the
statute 105 of the Rabindra Bharati First Statute first and the institution can establish its claim only on compliance with the same. It appears that the
University subsequently appointed Sri N. Das to make spot inspection of both the colleges and submit report and accordingly Sri Das made
inspection and prepared a report on 16-1-96 in which he recommended that the Bakshipally college might be allowed to enjoy the affiliation of the
University as the infrastructural facilities were more or less conducive to satisfy the conditions of affiliation, but the report about Subhaspally
College was not favourable. It may be noted here that the reports of Monoj Mitra team and N. Das were not contemporaneous. There was a gap
of about one year and a half between the two reports.
10. I have already mentioned that the appointment of Dr. Ranjit Kr. Mitra as administrator was challenged by the authorities of the Bakshipally
college in a writ petition. The said writ petition was finally disposed of by Ruma Pal, J. by order dated 24-6-94. By that order the learned Judge
quashed the impugned order of the University appointing Dr. R.K. Mitra as administrator. The learned Judge also recorded that as far as P.R
Bharati was concerned, in view of the clear finding of the courts, he had no right to run any institution by the name of Kabitirtha at Subhaspally at
all. The learned Judge further-observed that it was not P.R. Bharati''s case that he had started a new Institution after transfer of the institution from
Subhaspally to Bakshipally and P R. Bharati''s case was that he had been continuing with the old institution which case had been rejected by the
court repeatedly. Accordingly the learned Judge restrained the respondents from recognising any institution which might be run by P.R Bharati
under the name of Kabitirtha. The learned Judge also held in the said order that the institution at Bakshipally was the affiliated institution and
directed the Rabindra Bharati University to forthwith supply Registration Forms and also to nominate two persons on behalf of the University to the
Governing Body of the Kabitirtha College, Bakshipally. That order was passed by the learned Judge in CO. 5408(W) of 1994. There were two
appeals against that order, one being F.M.A.T. 2093/94 filed by P.R. Bharati and the other being F.M.A.T. No. 2205/94 filed by the Rabindra
Bharati University. The Appeal Bench by its order dated 3-8-94 inter alia directed the University to comply with the concerned order of the
learned trial Judge (regarding nominating two members to the Governing Body of the College at Bakshipally) subject to the decision in the appeal.
It was also recorded by the Division Bench in the said order dated 3-8-94 that the said order did not debar the University authorities from dealing
with the matter in accordance with law the same being not inconsistent with the order of the learned trial court. Again in that appeal the Division
Bench, after hearing the learned Advocates for the parties on 19.8.94 recorded that there was virtually no necessity to make any modification,
cancellation or recalling of the earlier order of the Division Bench and it was only observed that neither in the order of the Division Bench nor in the
order of the learned trial Judge there was anything which might debar the appellant P.R. Bharati from junning any institution, if it was permissible
under law, in a different name without using the name of Kabitirtha and he might also approach the University for affiliation under a different name
and if any such application was made it would be for the university authorities to consider and dispose of the matter in accordance with law. The
authorities of the Bakshipally College filed another writ petition and in that writ petition Altamas Kabir. J. passed an interim order on 23 12 94
directing the Rabindra Bharati University to accept the registration forms filled up by the students of the college at Bakshipally, etc. Pinaki Ranjan
Bharati then filed an appeal, with the leave of the Division Bench, against the said order and that appeal being F.M.A.T. No. 49/95 was disposed
of on 11.1.95 by the Division Bench comprising M. G. Mukherjee and Vidya Nand. JJ. By that order Rabindra Bharati University was directed to
consider the question of recognition of the appellant''s institution as a separate entity. The learned Advocate for P. R. Bharati argues that the said
order of the Division Bench virtually given a right to P.R Bharati to claim recognition of the college run by him at Subhas pally as affiliated college
on the basis of the affiliation initially granted by the university. I am afraid, it is difficult to sustain this argument. In this connection let us see what
were the relevant observations of the Division Bench in its order dated 11.1.95 and the same is quoted belows:
We treat the appeal as on the day''s list and dispose of the same by directing the Rabindra Bharati University to consider the question of
recognition of the appellant''s institution as a separate entity in accordance with law keeping in view the judgements on the field in between the
appellant on the one hand and respondents nos. 1 and 2 on the other and the very fact that the latest stand taken by the court was to the effect that
the institution, Kabitirtha at Bakshipally at Bongaon is a running one.
(Emphasis supplied)
11. Therefore what the Division Bench directed was not that the Rabindra Bharati University would consider the question of recognision the
institution of P.R. Bharati at Subhas pally as the affiliated college enjoying the earlier affiliation granted by the University, but that the university
would consider the question whether the institution at Subhaspally at that point of time could be recognised as a separate entity. The Division
Bench also clearly took note of the fact that the stand taken by the court was to the effect that Kabitirtha at Bakshipally was a running institution.
This order of the Division Bench obviously did not authorise the University to treat the Subhaspally institution as the affiliated institution contrary to
the position recognised by the courts by them that the original affiliated college had shifted from Subhaspally to Bakshipally. It was also argued by
the learned Advocate for P. R. Bharati that in that order the Division Bench also directed the university to take action against the authorities of the
Bakshipally institution, the relevant observation of the Division Bench in this connection is quoted below:
The university will reserve to itself its further rights under the university regulations to proceed in accordance with law against the respondents nos.
1 and 2, the Secretary and Principal of Kabitirtha'' at Bakshipally, if any of the academic attainments are to be found wanting but that should be
done following the principle of natural justice and in due process of law.
12. Thereafter, as I have already mentioned, Rabindra Bharati University appointed Sri N. Das to make inspection of both the institutions at
Subhaspally and Bakshipally and Sri Das also submitted his report dated 16.1.96 which report rather goes on the whole in favour of the institution
at Bakshipally but at the same time does not go in favour of the institution at Subhaspally.
13. It should be noted here that the question whether, pursuant to the decision of the Division Bench presided over by M.G. Mukherjee, J. any
action is required to be taken by the University against the Bakshipally authorities for any deficiency, is entirely a different matter from the question
whether recognition or affiliation can be granted by the University to the institution now run by P. R. Bharati at Subhaspally. In view of the repeated
decisions of different courts on different occasions as discussed above the position stands firmly rooted that the institution which is being run at
Bakshipally under the name Kabitirtha is the institution which carries with it the benefit of continuing affiliation originally granted to the institution
under the same name while it was functioning at Subhaspally before it was shifted to Bakshipally. The institution which might have been running
thereafter at Subhaspally under P. R. Bharati cannot claim the benefit of original affiliation of Kabitirtha since shifted to Bakshipally. This is the legal
position which it is high time now for Sri P.R Bharati to reconcile himself with, whatever may be his personal opinion in the matter. In fact during
the pendency of the present writ petition Sri P. R. Bharati reconciled himself with that position and filed application to university authorities to
obtain affiliation for his institution at Subhaspally in a different name other than Kabitirtha or Rabindratirtha as proposed by him. It was submitted
before the court that there were already institution at Subhaspally in a different name other than Kabitirtha. The university however could not
accede even to the name Rabitirtha or Rabindratirtha as proposed by him. It was submitted before the court that there were already institutions in
those names. But even apart from the question of name of the institution the other deficiencies were also there as noted in the inspection report of
N. Das dated 16.1.96. However this Court, in this writ petition, by its order dated the 10th April, 1996 directed the vice-Chancellor of the
University to nominate a competent person for the purpose of making a fresh inspection of the institution at Subhaspally. Pursuant to that Rabindra
Bharati University appointed Professor Utpala Goswami, Dean, Faculty of Fine Arts of that university to hold inspection. After inspection she
submitted report which also did not go in favour of P.R. Bharati. Apart from the proximity of the two colleges at Bakshipally and Subhaspally a
number of other deficiencies also have been noted in that inspection report. Adverse comments have been made in the report in respect of the
financial position of the institution, maintenance of accounts, administration, appointment etc. In view of such reports this Court in this writ petition
is not in a position to direct the university to grant affiliation to the institution of P. R. Bharati at Subhaspally under a different name. Indeed the writ
petition itself has not been filed for any such relief. The reliefs prayed for in the writ petition cannot be granted in view of the fact that the affiliated
institution is the institution which has been running under the name Kabitirtha at Bakshipally since after it was shifted from Subhaspally in 1984. Sri
P. R. Bharati has no concern with that institution. Indeed P. R. Bharati may, after removing the deficiencies, apply again to he Rabindra Bharati
University for affiliation of his institution under an acceptable name other than Kabitirtha. Having regard to the particular facts, circumstances and
the history of the case I however dispose of this writ petition with this direction that Sri P. R. Bharati will be at liberty to apply for affiliation of his
institution at Subhaspally after removing the deficiencies which are there in his institution at the present moment and if any fresh application for
affiliation is made in future by Sri P. R. Bharati after removing the deficiencies, the university authorities will consider and dispose of the same in
accordance with law waiving however the bar of proximity of the two colleges as a special case if the institution of Sri P. R. Bharati is otherwise
found fit for affiliation in future. While applying for affiliation of his institution in a different name Sri Bharati will be at liberty to suggest at least five
names for his institution arranged in order of preference other than Kabitirtha and if the university considers it otherwise fit to grant affiliation to the
institution it will grant affiliation in a name which, going by the order of the indicated preference, may be found acceptable to the University. It is
needless to mention that if Sri P. R. Bharti makes any fresh application for affiliation in future, the University will be at liberty to cause fresh
inspection for the purpose of taking a decision on such application. I have already mentioned that during the pendency of this writ proceeding the
petitioner P. R. Bharati also filed in this proceeding an application for restraining the respondent nos. 5 and 6 (the Authorities of the Scheduled
Castes and Tribes Welfare Department, Govt. of West Bengal) from making any payment of Scheduled Castes and Tribes stipends to the
Kabitirtha College at Bakshipally till the disposal of the writ petition and also for referring the matter to the C.B.I. for inquiry. The petitioner''s
grievance as reflected in the said application is that the authorities concerned have unauthorisedly and illegally released or are going to release
Scheduled Castes stipends in favour of the college at Bakshipally. In view of the position, as we have found, that Bakshipally College is required to
be treated as the College enjoying the benefit of the original affiliation of Kabitirtha, it is not necessary for this Court now to pass any order
regarding Scheduled Castes stipend except that all concerned will act in accordance with law in the matter of grant and disbursement of Scheduled
Castes stipend and shall remain responsible under law if any irregularity is committed in respect of the same which is however beyond the scope of
the present writ petition to deal with. The writ petition and the said application as well as other application all stand disposed of accordingly. No
cost is ordered. All parties are to act on a signed copy of the operative part of this judgement on the usual undertaking.
