Kerala High Court
Manu.G.Rajan vs University Of Kerala on 30 September, 2014
Author: K. Vinod Chandran
Bench: K.Vinod Chandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2014/9TH KARTHIKA, 1936
WP(C).No. 17617 of 2014 (B)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
--------------------------
MANU.G.RAJAN, AGED 34 YEARS,
S/O.GOPI RAJAN, T.C. NO.26/519, VANROSE JUNCTION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
BY ADV. SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS
RESPONDENT(S) :
----------------------------
1. UNIVERSITY OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2. THE VICE- CHANCELLOR,
UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM - 695 001.
3. THE CHANCELLOR,
UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,
RAJ BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
* ADDITIONAL R4 IMPLEADED
4. V.SIVANKUTTY, AGED 69 YEARS,
S/O.VASUDEVAN PILLAI, RESIDING AT MULAKKAL, 9 SUBASH NAGAR,
PERUMTHANI, VALLAKKADAVU P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 009.
* ADDITIONAL R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 30.09.2014 IN
I.A.NO.12874 OF 2014.
R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, S.C
ADDL.R4 BY SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR (SENIOR ADVOCATE)
ADVS. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN
SRI.SAIJO HASSAN
SRI.PRATHAP PILLAI
SRI.SEBIN THOMAS
SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN
SRI.VISHNU BHUVANENDRAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 31-10-2014, ALONG WITH W.P.(C).NO. 27384/2014 AND
W.P.(C).NO.27390/2014, , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
Msd.
WP(C).No. 17617 of 2014 (B)
-----------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-------------------------------------
EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED BY LOYOLA COLLEGE
OF SOCIAL SCIENCES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE UNIVERSITY UNION IDENTITY CARD ISSUED TO
THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 17-05-2014 ISSUED BY
THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY.
EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE KERALA UNIVERSITY
ACT,1974 SHOWING THE PROVISIONS CONTAINING THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE SYNDICATE AND THE TERM OF OFFICE OF
MEMBERS OF THE SYNDICATE.
EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE KERALA UNIVERSITY
(CONDUCT OF ELECTION TO VARIOUS AUTHORITIES AND BODIES )
FIRST STATUTES 1974.
EXHIBIT P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 10.07.2014 SUBMITTED BY
THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 27.08.2014 ISSUED BY
THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------------------------
NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A.TO JUDGE.
Msd.
K. Vinod Chandran, J.
====================================
W.P.(C)Nos.17617, 27384 & 27390 of 2014
====================================
Dated this the 31st day of October, 2014.
JUDGMENT
1. The above writ petitions are with respect to the very same subject- matter, being the election to the Senate of the first respondent University. W.P.(C)No.17617 of 2014 filed as early as on 9.7.2014 seeks expeditious conduct of the said election. When the election was about to be notified, W.P.(C)Nos.27384 and 27390/2014 were filed, alleging illegalities in the proposed notification. This Court had stayed the notification on 20.10.2014 and today the matter was taken up for final hearing.
2. I have heard all the counsel appearing for different parties in all the three writ petitions and also the additional respondent in W.P.(C) No.27384 of 2014. Essentially, the dispute revolves around how the W.P.(C)Nos.17617, 27384 & 27390 of 2014 -:2:- publication of election has to be made as per Statute 3(5) of the Kerala University (Conduct of Elections to various Authorities or Bodies) First statutes, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "First Statutes"). Sub statute (5) of Statute 13 specifically states that the schedule for the conduct of the election [to the Syndicate (sic)] shall commence from the publication of the electoral roll seven days prior to the date of notification of the election as provided for under Statute 34 and that the stipulation relating to the publication of the electoral roll as required under Statute 13 will not apply to this 'election'.
3. The petitioners, challenging the proposed notification for election; contend that no publication as such has been made. Learned standing counsel for the University, as also the parties supporting the early conduct of election, contend that, even going by W.P.(C) No.27384/14, in which electoral roll has been produced as Ext.P11, it is clear that the electoral roll was available for anyone to verify. W.P.(C)Nos.17617, 27384 & 27390 of 2014 -:3:- Learned standing counsel for the University also submits that, all along the electoral roll used to be prepared and kept in the office of the Registrar and it was made available on payment of Rs.30 to any person desirous of such copies. It is also submitted that Statute 13 prescribes for 30 clear days for the notification to be published before an election has to be conducted and that too, in newspapers, which stands exempted under sub-statute (5) of Statute 3.
4. As was noticed earlier, the controversy with respect to the publication by way of newspapers or any other mode is generally accepted. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.(C)27384/14 also contends that the area is a grey area in which this Court may pass authoritative declaration. However, this Court is not convinced that such an authoritative declaration is necessary in view of the orders intended to be passed in the writ petitions.
5. Admittedly, the Senate is the body which elects the Syndicate. The members of the Senate comprises of the electoral college from W.P.(C)Nos.17617, 27384 & 27390 of 2014 -:4:- whom, again nominations are made to the Senate. The Senate is constituted as per Statute 21 of the First Statute. The term of the Syndicate as also the Senate expired on 16.5.2014. Immediately thereafter, on 17.5.2014, the Senate was reconstituted by Ext.R5(a). Other nominations were made on 26.5.2014 and 27.5.2014 which is evidenced by R5 (b) & (c) . As on 27.8.2014, there were 108 members, the full contingent in the Senate. The parties who support expeditious conduct of the election maintain that if the University had notified the election, within time, all the 108 members could have exercised their franchise.
6. Four students, who were nominated by the Chancellor are said to be ineligible for casting their votes, if polling is not held before 11.11.2014, since their term expires on that day. The grievance of the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.27390/14, who allegedly represents the student community is that, since the four members nominated by the Chancellor will become disentitled to exercise their franchise, the W.P.(C)Nos.17617, 27384 & 27390 of 2014 -:5:- student community representation in the election would be substantially reduced. Hence, the prayer is that the elections may be deferred till nominations are made to the posts which fall vacant on 11.11.2014.
7. It is very evident that the University has drawn up an electoral roll, which is produced by the petitioners in W.P.(C)Nos.273894/14 as Ext.P11. Hence, none can now claim any procedural irregularity with respect to the publication since, evidently, Statute 13 which prescribes 30 days clear period before the elections and publication in newspapers, is exempted under sub statute (5) of Statute 3. The question as to what is the mode of publication need not be answered, especially, since, it would not be necessary by virtue of such exemption in sub statute (5) to make any publication in a newspaper. However, going by the admitted position that the electoral roll is kept in the office of the Registrar, enabling any person to get a copy of the same, this Court is of the view that, to avoid any further controversy, W.P.(C)Nos.17617, 27384 & 27390 of 2014 -:6:- it is best that, the Registrar at least display the electoral roll in the Notice Board of the Office of the Registrar, facilitating any person also, to get a copy of the electoral roll under Statute 16.
8. To bring quietus to the issue and since all parties purportedly are interested in the conduct of the election, it is only proper that the election to the Syndicate is expedited since, any delay would result in the term of many of the persons now included in the Senate getting expired. In such circumstances, there shall be a direction to the respondent University to display the electoral roll in the Notice Board of the Office of the Registrar, within seven days from today and notify the election in accordance with sub statute (5) of Statute 3. With respect to the contentions in W.P.(C)No.27390 of 2014, it is an admitted fact that, there are other students, who are members of the Senate, otherwise than by way of nomination. The expiry of the term of the nominated members is a natural consequence which would definitely visit the four students. This Court cannot extend the W.P.(C)Nos.17617, 27384 & 27390 of 2014 -:7:- period since, the eligibility to vote in an election to the Syndicate is controlled by the provisions of Kerala University First Statutes, 1974. In such circumstances, the elections would be notified as indicated above.
Writ petitions would stand disposed of with the above directions.
K. Vinod Chandran, Judge.
sl.