Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: ..1.. NM No.2306-2018 Suit 2174-2018
MHCC010074622018
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT FOR GREATER
BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2306 OF 2018
IN
S. C. SUIT NO. 2174 OF 2018
Tata Institute of Social Sciences ]
Through its Registrar, ]
V. N. Purav Marg, Deonar, ]
Mumbai-400 088. ] .. Plaintiff
Versus
1. Mr. Fahad Ahmed ]
General Secretary of Students ]
Union and others, ]
Having its office at the campus ]
Tata Institute of Social Sciences ]
Mumbai-400 088. ]
2. Ms. Shefali Saini, ]
3. Mr. Ajmal Khan, ]
4. Mr. Yashwant Bapurao Zagade, ]
5. Mr. Joy Praful Lakra, ]
6. Mr. Imran Gandhi, (deleted) ]
Address: At the Students’ Union’s ]
Office, Tata Institute of Social ]
Sciences, V.N. Purav Marg, ]
Deonar, Mumbai-400 088. ] .. Defendants.
Appearances :-
Ld. Adv. Yasmin Sarang or Plaintiff
Adv. Jesani for defendant Nos. 1 to 5.
-- 1 of 13 --
..2.. NM No.2306-2018 Suit 2174-2018
CORAM : HER HONOUR JUDGE
SMT. ANITA B. SHARMA
COURT ROOM NO.03
DATE : 10/04/2024
ORDER
The plaintiff has taken out present notice of motion for
claiming the relief inter alia;
(a) To direct the students to remove the tents/temporary structure
erected by the students for their activities within the campus of the
Institute.
(b) To direct the students to remove all the banners, posters including
those of National Leaders and dignitaries displayed within the campus
and across the pavement and also plastic and flex banners which are
otherwise banned in law.
(c) To restrain the students from organizing programmes, meetings,
public lectures by inviting outsiders, public and political leaders and
holding meetings within the campus without the prior written
permission from the institute.
(d) To restrain the students from displaying any posters, banners
defacing walls within the campus.
(e) To restrain the students from in any way protesting, obstructing
normal movements of the faculties, staff, residents, blocking the roads
and otherwise disrupting the normal functioning of the Institute.
(f) To restrain the students from creating indiscipline activities in the
academic including the class rooms with fellow students, faculties, staff,
authorities and in any way using abusive or indecent language or in any
way disrupting the dignity of each other.
(g) To restrain the students from in any way agitating, demonstrating
en-mass, shouting slogans and otherwise obstructing the normal
-- 2 of 13 --
..3.. NM No.2306-2018 Suit 2174-2018
movements of the Institute and entering the office of the authorities
without prior permission.
(h) For such other and further reliefs as the nature and circumstances
of the case may require.
(i) Ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayers (a) to (g).
2. The plaintiff in affidavit in support contended that already
the notice of motion No. 1364 of 2018 is taken out by the plaintiff for
grant of the reliefs prayed therein. It is further contended that on
27/03/2018, the defendants appeared through their respective
Advocates and have sought time to file reply to the notice of motion. It
is also contended that the defendants through their respective
Advocates have made a statement to this Court that they are not
involved in any obstruction, in the daily activities of the institute and
they will also not get involved in any violent activities. It is further
contended that upon passing the said order, although the defendants
were aware of the same, a copy of the same was displayed for
information of all the students. However, it is regretfully found that the
defendants started propaganda to the majority of the student that the
Court has permitted the students to continue their agitation and have
instead of adhering to the statements made before this Court are
creating the nuisance and obstructions and several other activities
within the campus in spite of the order passed by this Court on
27/03/2018 upon the undertakings given by the defendants.
3. It is further contended that the statements made by the
students before this Court are totally false and baseless as they
continued to organize meeting within the campus with slogan shouting,
demonstration, display of banners, drumming, singing by assembling at
-- 3 of 13 --
..4.. NM No.2306-2018 Suit 2174-2018
various places. They continued to obstruct the movements of residents
who are staying in the campus and the residents include the families of
the staff, executives, school going children, citizens. It is also contended
that the students are found displaying posters, photos of National
Leaders on the pavement of the institute. It is further contended that
the said posters of the dignitaries are being displayed on the roads,
pavement within the campus. According to the plaintiff, the students
have no respect to those National Leaders are being displayed on the
pavement within the campus. The protesters did not pay any attention
to protect those banners and respect of the dignitaries. Many of the
posters displayed by the students are found on the roads which shows
disrespect to those National Leaders. It is also contended that the
students have also blocked the main gate of the institute and also
prevented the female Acting Director from moving out of the institute
for going home on 21/02/2018 at about 8:00 pm. According to the
plaintiff, several instances have occurred where the staff, employees of
the institute were kept hostages, confined and they were not even
allowed to attend their natures calls on 28/02/2018. It is further
contended that the some lady members and other staff, officials, senior
citizens were not allowed to use the washrooms also and some of them,
having not able to control, had to jump through the window.
4. It is also contended that there are instances where the
Acting Director, Deputy Director, faculty members were confined for
more than five hours on 05/06/2018 and 06/03/2018. There are
instances wherein the students went on giving speeches, shouting
slogans within the premises of the institute. The students have also
created human blockades with women for men and men for women to
fabricate false evidence.
-- 4 of 13 --
..5.. NM No.2306-2018 Suit 2174-2018
5. According to the plaintiff, the repetition of the incidences
have occurred in spite of the repeated appeals to the students by the
institute through its acting director, registrar, deans student affairs,
social protection officer, empowered committee, deputy director and
even the staff appealing to the students to allow them to work. It is
further contended that there were instances where the students have
blocked the senior citizens including women and staff. There was an
occasion where a senior faculty, persons with disability (PWD) staff, an
occupant with a child having health issues entering the premises were
sent back, a resident taking his daughter to school was not allowed,
blocking of staff and resident children, blocking the former director
from going out, blocking residents and drives to go out, blocking the
vehicles, blocking cars from inside/outside, even the milk van was not
allowed to come in, not allowing people to go out at night, blocking a
mother from going out at night, blocking a mother from going out of
the gate for bringing students from outside, blocking the main gate of
the institute by sleeping on the road.
6. It is further contention of the plaintiff that on 22/02/2018
the students were not allowing the staff to enter inside and on
24/02/1018, blocking the main entrance by sitting in front of the gate,
blocking the residents to out at night for many days, hanging of string
noose to create atmosphere of terror. It is further contended that
entering into the Registrar’s office forcefully and picketing, shouting,
beating drums, using mega phones, the confidential records and
documents were accessed, copied and the institute does not know what
documents are taken out, copied as the Registrar being the custodian of
the institute dealing with many confidential records of the plaintiff’s
-- 5 of 13 --
..6.. NM No.2306-2018 Suit 2174-2018
institute. According to the plaintiff, the aforesaid incident occurred on
23/03/2018.
7. It is further contended by the plaintiff that students have
created obstructions at the main gate with posters and banners of
dignitaries, placed throughout the roads within the campus. These
posters of dignitaries of the National Importance left unattended on the
road. It is, therefore, necessary to direct the students to remove all the
posters displayed within the Institute at any place. It is also contended
that the students have defaced the heritage building, walls and roads of
the institute. It is further contention of the plaintiff that holding out the
Ex-Director and a lady faculty having hearing disability, of the institute
as hostage and confinement for more than 6 hours on 24/03/3018 from
08:00 pm to 2:00 am. According to the plaintiff, the main
administrative wing was blocked by putting the furniture, tables and
also sleeping on it by male and female students, during whole night for
3 days from 25/03/2018 to 27/03/2018. It is also contended that a
temporary structure was erected by the student, protestors within the
campus and displayed the photos of National Leaders, dignitaries and
left unattended. The students went on singing, dancing, drumming
throughout the night within the campus. According to the plaintiff,
appeals made in the media that the plaintiff’s campus needs to be more
politically vibrant and an appeal made in the electronic media to the
above effect by the defendant No.1.
8. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the issue regarding
the Post Matric Scholarship (PMS) is purely within the domain of the
respective Governments and the institute have no role. Whatsoever,
particularly when the students have also approached the respective
-- 6 of 13 --
..7.. NM No.2306-2018 Suit 2174-2018
SC/ST Commission constituted under the Constitution of India for
protection of rights of the backward classes. By resorting to such
remedies, the defendants and the students appear to have approached
the authorities. The students and the defendants cannot create an
atmosphere of indiscipline and bringing the entire activities of the
students can in no way are permissible under the Constitutional
provision. It is further contented that the rules of the institute do not
provide for any such activities.
9. According to the plaintiff, the above incidents and activities
of the students are going out of hands, unless this Court restrain them
from indulging in such activities. Therefore, it is necessary to restrain
them from indulging the aforesaid activities. Hence, this motion.
10. The defendants have resisted the motion by filing their
reply mainly on the ground that none of the defendants have violated
the order dated 19/06/2018 passed by this Court. It is submitted that
documents to show the communications to the police authorities, notice
issued by the plaintiff, news report have been produced by the plaintiff
for the first time. It is further submitted that a letter dated 23/03/2018
purportedly addressed to the Additional Commissioner does not bear
the acknowledgment of the receipts. It is also submitted that most of the
allegation mentioned in the said letter are already mentioned in the
present suit as well as notice of motion. It is specifically submitted that
the documents produced by the plaintiff are prior to the filing of the
suit, therefore, no question of violation of the order passed by this
Court.
11. It is also submitted that the second set of the documents
-- 7 of 13 --
..8.. NM No.2306-2018 Suit 2174-2018
pertains to a completely unrelated public gathering held on 14/08/2018
by the student’s union (2018-2019) in the campus which has no
connection whatsoever with the present case. According to the
defendants, a public gathering had been organized by the student’s
union of the plaintiff’s institute in aftermath of two incidents which are
of significance to the society and also to students of a social science
institute, such as the plaintiff institute. One incident had been the
burning of the Indian Constitution and sloganeering against Dr. B. R.
Ambedkar by anti-reservation groups on 09/08/2018, at the parliament
street in New Delhi. Another incident that had taken place was the
assassination attempt of a student named Umar Khalid who is pursuing
his Ph.D. at the Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi. It is further
submitted that students studying in a social science institute like
plaintiff have always come together to discuss such incidents of human
rights violation and issues which are of National Importance. Such
gatherings have been part of academic life at the plaintiff’s institute
when different individuals, organizations, Student’s Union have
organized such gatherings since many years now. It is further submitted
that the plaintiff’s administration was informed in advance about the
public gathering. The event poster is in respect of the public gatherings
and not a demonstration or agitation or protest. The gathering was
organized in the night at 8:00 pm and hence was not obstructive to any
academic work in the plaintiff’s campus and went on for one hour only.
12. According to the defendants, the said public gathering has
no relation whatsoever with the instant case and was neither a
demonstration or agitation as mischievously sought to be alleged by the
plaintiff. It is further submitted that the public gathering did not form
part of any student protest against the plaintiff or its administration. It
-- 8 of 13 --
..9.. NM No.2306-2018 Suit 2174-2018
was an entirely independent programme organized by the Student’s
Union after duly notifying the administration of plaintiff. It is further
submitted that none of the office bearers of the Student’s Union are
parties to the present suit. According to the defendants, the letter dated
14/08/2018, addressed by the security officer to the deputy registrar,
personal section of the plaintiff’s institute. It is further submitted that
the said letter seems to be dictated and deliberately procured for the
purpose of this case, by the administration to falsely indict some of
these defendants by naming them specifically, although the gathering
was attended by close to 200 students and was called by the Student’s
Union in the plaintiff’s institution. It is also submitted that the plaintiff
has falsely projected that collective slogans were raised by the students.
It is further submitted that in the letter issued by the plaintiff, name of
the Student’s Union President and Vice President are mentioned who
are not parties to the present suit.
13. It is the submission of the defendants that the final relief
and the relief claimed in the present notice of motion are similar,
therefore, at this stage, final relief cannot be granted. It is further
submitted that the plaintiff is taking an adversarial approach against the
students and deliberately misrepresenting facts in order to ensure a
complete clampdown of student expression and voices within the
campus. It is also submitted that the documents produced by the
plaintiff clearly indicate that the public gathering had no connection
whatsoever with the student protest forming the subject matter of this
suit. It is also submitted that the order dated 19/06/2018 is being
misused by the plaintiff’s institute and its administration to intimidate
students from exercising their fundamental rights as students and as
citizens of this country. On all these grounds, the motion is opposed.
-- 9 of 13 --
..10.. NM No.2306-2018 Suit 2174-2018
14. Perused the notice of motion, say, documents, written notes
of arguments. Heard both sides.
15. It is seen that the plaintiff is seeking temporary injunction
with certain directions to the defendants. The nature of relief indicates
that the plaintiff is seeking prohibitory injunction in this notice of
motion. The learned Advocate for the defendants has submitted that the
general body of the students is now become changed and the defendant
No.2, 3 and 5 have left the college/plaintiffs institution. The protest
was concluded since long back. The record indicates that ad-interim
protection was granted on 19/06/2018 and the defendants have
removed articles from protest/demonstration site and clean up the
parking lot at the main gate. The photographs nowhere indicate that
the defendants have obstructed the vehicles on the main gate by placing
posters and banners.
16. It appears that after the grant of the ad-interim order
passed by this court on 19/06/2018, the defendants have removed all
the banners, posters, tents and filed compliance report alongwith
photographs on record. It is also seen that the protest was concluded
long back and now no such situation of protest is in existence. It is
pertinent to note that at the time of the filing of this notice of motion,
the defendants were pursuing education in the plaintiff’s institute. Now
after laps of six years, this notice of motion is taken up for hearing. The
learned advocate for the defendants has specifically submitted that now
the defendants have not remained the students of the plaintiff’s
institute. They have left the institute. It is significant to note here that
the plaintiff has nowhere brought on record any material to show that
the defendants have still taking education in its institute and also the
-- 10 of 13 --
..11.. NM No.2306-2018 Suit 2174-2018
part of the Student’s Union as well as they are also agitating, making
Bandh or Dharana in the plaintiff’s institute.
17. So far as this material aspect is concerned, if the
defendants have now not remaining the students of plaintiff’s institute,
under such circumstance, whatever the reliefs are claimed by the
plaintiff against the defendants have no force as there is no possibility
of any strike or Dharana or Bandh by the defendants in the plaintiff’s
institute as of now. Under that circumstances, it would not be
appropriate to grant prohibitory injunction against the defendants who
are not the part of the plaintiff’s institute now. Due to the said reason, I
do not find that the plaintiff has made prima facie case to make
absolute the interim relief earlier granted by this Court.
18. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I do
not find that the plaintiff has succeeded to make out prima facie case
and balance of convenience in its favour for grant of temporary
injunction. Hence, I do not find any substance in this motion and needs
to be dismissed. In the result, I proceed to pass following order:-
O R D E R
1. Notice of Motion No. 2306 of 2018 is hereby dismissed.
2. No order as to costs.
3. Notice of Motion No.2306 of 2018 is disposed of accordingly.
(Smt. Anita B. Sharma,)
Judge,
City Civil Court, Greater Bombay
Dated : 10/04/2024 C.R. No.03
Dictated on : 10/04/2024
Typed on : 16/04/2024
Signed on : 18/04/2024
-- 11 of 13 --
..12.. NM No.2306-2018 Suit 2174-2018
“Certified to be true and correct copy of the original signed order”.
19/04/2024
at about p.m.
(Dastagir Babalal Mulla)
Stenographer Grade-I (Gazetted)
Court Room No.03, Gr. Bombay
Name of the Hon'ble Judge : Smt. Anita B. Sharma,
Judge, Bombay City Civil Court &
Addl. Sessions Judge,
Court Room No.03, Gr. Bombay
Date of pronouncement of
Order
: 10/04/2024
Order signed by Hon'ble13 pt
Judge on
: 18/04/2024
Order uploaded on : 19/04/2024
-- 12 of 13 --
..13.. NM No.2306-2018 Suit 2174-2018
-- 13 of 13 --