Uttarakhand High Court
Manish Chauhan Minor And Another vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 1 September, 2017
Author: Sudhanshu Dhulia
Bench: Sudhanshu Dhulia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2199 of 2017
Manish Chauhan and another
....Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others
....Respondents
Present: Dr. Kartikey Hari Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Yogesh Pandey, Addl. C.S.C. for the State/respondent
nos. 1 & 2.
Hon'ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.
Before this Court, petitioner no. 1 is a minor aged between 17 to 18 years and petitioner no. 2 who is his father. This petition has been filed before this Court with the following prayers:
"i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to conduct the student union elections strictly in accordance with the Hon'ble Supreme Court Order in University of Kerala vs Council, Principals, Colleges, Kerala and others containing J M Lyngdoh Guidelines.
ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 and to allow the petitioner no. 1 to participate as a candidate in the student union election, 2017-2018 of Anusuia Prasad Bahuguna Government Post Graduate College, Agastyamuni, District Rudraprayag.
iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, calling for the records, and quashing the condition no.
31 of the student union election guidelines 2017-2018.
2iv) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, calling for the records and quashing the student union election notification dated 28 August, 2017."
2. In short, this is a case where the father joins hands with his son, and the two have filed a writ petition before this Court seeking the above relief. Petitioner no. 1 in short is not being allowed to contest the election of the Student's Union and hence this writ petition is primarily seeking a direction of this Court to allow him to contest the elections !
3. The case of the petitioners is that as per the conditions given by Anusuia Prasad Bahuguna Government Post Graduate College, Agastyamuni, District Rudraprayag, a candidate can only participate in the students union election, if he has a particular credit marks in his graduation. This, according to the petitioners, is in violation of the Lyngdoh Committee report, which has been endorsed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Hence, it has not only effectively been prayed that the entire election be stopped, but the petitioner no. 1 be allowed to contest the election as per the recommendation of the Lyngdoh Committee.
4. The elections in question are scheduled to be held on 04.09.2017. The candidature of petitioner no. 1 is being rejected since he is short of minimum credit point as required under the conditions.
5. All the same, after hearing learned counsels for the parties at length and considering the nature of the case and the fact that the petitioners have come before 3 this Court highly belatedly, when elections itself are scheduled for 04.09.2017, i.e. barely two days after, this Court is of a considered view that any interference with the ongoing election will presently not be justified. The fact of the matter remains that the elections were notified on 28.08.2017 and the election process is already on.
6. Also considering the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in seminal decision in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405 that once election process is on, no interference is liable to be made, no interference is liable to be made by this Court in the present writ petition.
7. Writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. However, the petitioners would always be at liberty to challenge the elections in accordance with law, if they are so advised.
(Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.)
Avneet/ 01.09.2017