## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT:**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR**
**THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/15TH PHALGUNA, 1935**
## **WA.No. 344 of 2014 () IN WP(C).3658/2014**
**-----------------------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 3658/2014 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 20-02-2014**
## **APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANT/PETITIONER:**
**------------------------------------------------------------------**
**SHAHRUKH KHAN O.S., AGED 21 YEARS S/O SHAHNAWAZ KHAN J.O., UNIVERSITY UNION COUNCILOR III YEAR B.C.A.**
**SIENA COLLEGE OF PROFESSIONAL STUDIES, KONNAM ROAD PERUMPADAPPU, PALLURUTHY P.O. EDACOCHIN RESIDING AT 48/2223, PLAY GROUND ROAD ELAMAKKARA P.O. KOCHI - 682 026 (ELECTORAL ROLL NO.265)**
**BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE JOSEPH**
## **RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:**
**----------------------------------------------------**
## **1. VICE CHANCELLOR**
- **MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS KOTTAYAM - 686 560.**
**2. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY REP BY ITS REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM - 686 560.**
## **3. PRINCIPAL**
- **SIENA COLLEGE OF PROEFFESSION STUDIES, KONNAM ROAD PERUMPADAPPU, PALLURUTHY P.O., EDACOCHIN.**
**4. STUDENTS FEDERATION OF INDIA REP BY ITS SECRETARY, AKG CENTRE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.**
**R1 & R2 BY SRI.MATHEWS K.PHILIP R3 BY DR.P.LEELAKRISHNAN, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY**
**THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
## **K.M.JOSEPH & A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, JJ.**
## **------------------------------W.A.NO.344 OF 2014**
**----------------------------------Dated this the 6[th] day of March, 2014**
## **J U D G M E N T**
## **K.M.JOSEPH, J.**
Appellant is the writ petitioner. The appellant is the student of the 3[rd] respondent College. He approached this Court seeking a direction to respondents 1 and 3 to conduct the election to the office bearers of the College Union.
## 2. Briefly put the case of the appellant is as follows:
_“The appellant is a III Year B.C.A. student in the Siena College of Professional Studies, Konnam Road, Perumpadappu, Palluruthy P.O., Kochi - 682010. The Siena College of Professional Studies is affiliated to Mahatma Gandhi University Union. Each college affiliated to the Mahatma Gandhi University shall have a College Union for students. It is submitted that elections to the college union of all affiliated colleges and university departments students unions under the Mahatma Gandhi University were held on 03-02-2014 except Siena College of Professional Studies, Konnam Road, Perumpadappu, Palluruthy P.O., Kochi - 682010. The Mahatma Gandhi University Syndicate decided_
**W.A.NO.344/2014**
**2**
_to conduct the college union election either by Parliamentary mode or by Presidential mode. The 3[rd] respondent accepted Parliamentary mode. It is submitted that class wise elections were already held in the Siena College of Professional Studies. Petitioner is an elected class representative from his class. Electoral roll for election of office bearers (i.e. the list of elected class representatives) was also published on 03-02-2014. On 03-02-2014, (Election date) some Students Federation of India activists came to the college from outside of college and threatened our college Principal to conduct the election by presidential mode and thereby disturbed the election of college union office bearers. Thereby no college union office bearers were elected. It is learned that Ext.R3(c) filed by the 3[rd] respondent along with his counter affidavit was not received by the university. It is a document prepared for the purpose of filing along with the counter affidavit. Hence no reply has been given by the 1[st] and 2[nd] respondent University to the 3[rd] respondent. It is submitted that the College union is very much necessary to send the students to participate in the university union youth festival. It is the college union executive committee send students to participate in the university union youth festival. It is submitted that the learned single judge should not have dismissed writ petition No.3658/2014. The learned single judge ought to have direct the 3[rd] respondent to conduct the college union election.”_
3. A counter affidavit was filed by the 3[rd] respondent. Therein, it is inter alia stated that on the basis of Ext.P1, the 3[rd] respondent appointed the Head of the Department of Management Studies as Returning Officer to conduct the college union election for the year 2013-14 vide Ext.R3(a). On receipt of the same, the returning officer
**W.A.NO.344/2014**
**3**
notified the schedule of election in parliamentary mode by notifying the date on 23.01.2014 by Ext.R3(b). It is further stated that no students submitted their nominations for class representatives to the returning officer. Thereby the returning officer has intimated the said fact to the 2[nd] respondent - Registrar of Mahatma Gandhi University - vide Ext.R3(c). It is noted that since the academic year of the college is coming to close and various extra curricular activities of the college have to be conducted, a list of class leaders is needed in order to organize cultural and sports activities. The returning officer gave a letter stating the contingency arising out of the on-election of office bearers. So, in consultation with the Head of Departments and the returning officer of the College, a list of students leaders has been prepared. The appellant is included in the list from III year B.C.A. No students submitted nomination before the returning officer to the post of class representative and thus Ext.R3(c) was submitted before the University. In Ext.R3(c), the returning officer requested the 2[nd] respondent university to inform the further proceedings in respect of the college union election. It is also stated that the college is willing to conduct election if the university grants necessary permission even though time is over. Since there was no proper response from the
**W.A.NO.344/2014**
**4**
side of the respondent university this respondent has not proceeded further in conducting the election to the college union. While so, some students have submitted their nominations by presidential mode before the returning officer but it was not accepted. A counter affidavit is seen filed on 22.02.2014 by the petitioner. Therein, he has stated that class wise elections were already held in the college and the electoral roll for election of office bearers was also published. On 03.02.2014, some Students Federation of India (SFI) activists came to the college and threatened the college Principal and thereby disturbed the election.
4. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition noticing that despite the willingness of the college authorities to conduct the college union election, no purpose would be served since the 2[nd] respondent University contended that the University Union Councillors can be allowed to be represented in the University Union only if elections as per the schedule has been conducted. The practice according to the University is to form the University Union in the next academic year out of the nominees elected from all the colleges and then to elect the office bearers of the University Union from the so
**W.A.NO.344/2014**
**5**
nominated and elected candidates from the college unions. It was in such circumstances, that the University has not granted any permission to conduct elections outside the schedule since that would create further problems. The apprehension of the University that it would lead to a precedent wherein various colleges would be conducting elections at different times and thus making it difficult for the University co-ordinate the same and carry on the system, in a functional manner, the Court was of the opinion that no direction could be issued to the college, at this point of time, to conduct an election. Being aggrieved, the appellant has filed this appeal.
5. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the College and also the learned counsel for the University.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that actually the schedule of election was commenced, class wise election was already held and election of college union office bearers was disturbed by some SFI activists. At least nominations may be directed to be accepted, which is permitted in the judgment of the Apex Court
**W.A.NO.344/2014**
**6**
in **University of Kerala v. Council, Principals', Colleges, Kerala and Others ((2006) 8 SCC 304)** is the submission of the counsel. Learned counsel for the appellant would also submit that College Union is mandatory. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents would reiterate what is stated in the counter and what is submitted is that actually no election had taken place.
7. It is the case where the appellant had approached the court seeking a direction. We find from the counter affidavit that the college had notified a returning officer, but the election could not be conducted for the reason that there was no nomination received. The allegations in the counter have not been rebutted by filing a reply affidavit. Thus, we must proceed on the footing that though notification was issued providing for a schedule which included the last date of receipt of nominations, no nominations were submitted. It thus resulted in the elections not being held in regard to class representatives. It is from the class representatives that the other office bearers are to be elected. It is in such circumstances, the College authorities took the decision to have a list of students leaders and we notice that the appellant is also included as one of the student
**W.A.NO.344/2014**
**7**
leaders. In such circumstances, we may not be justified as of now to direct the conducting of election. There is no merit in the appeal, and the appeal is dismissed.
**K.M.JOSEPH JUDGE**
**A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE**
prp
