Gujarat High Court
Gaurang Vijayrai Vaidya vs State Of Gujarat on 25 February, 2019
Author: Bela M. Trivedi
Bench: Bela M. Trivedi
C/SCA/5984/2016 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5984 of 2016
================================================================
GAURANG VIJAYRAI VAIDYA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 4 other(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR HARSHIT S TOLIA(2708) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR PARTH S TOLIA(5617) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
ADVANCE COPY SERVED TO GOVERNMENT PLEADER/PP(99) for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
MR AR THACKER(888) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
NOTICE SERVED BY DS(5) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,4,5
DR VENUGOPAL PATEL, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI
Date : 25/02/2019
ORAL ORDER
1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 31.12.2015 passed by the respondent No. 1 in Appeal and seeking declaration that the election of the respondent University to the syndicate held on 29.07.2015 was illegal, null and void.
2. At the outset learned Advocate Mr. Thacker appearing for the respondent No. 3 states that the term of the elected body of the syndicate of the respondent University is already over and therefore the petition has become infructuous.
3. However learned Advocate Mr. Tolia appearing for the petitioner submits that the election had taken place dehors the provisions contained in South Gujarat University Statutes and South Gujarat University Act inasmuch as the members who had voted were not Page 1 of 2 C/SCA/5984/2016 ORDER eligible to be the members of the senate and therefore could not have participated in the election of the syndicate. He also submitted that the requisite period of notice as contemplated in the Statute 29 was also not given.
4. Since the term of the elected body of the syndicate is already over, as such the petition has become infructuous. It is needless to say that the High Court does not decide the academic issues while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence the petition is dismissed as having become infructuous.
(BELA M. TRIVEDI, J) SINDHU NAIR Page 2 of 2