The Returning Officer, Thunjath Ezhuthachan Malayalam University & Others v. Faisal Ibrayinte Purakkal & Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. A.J.DESAI** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **MONDAY, THE 11[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA,** ## **1945** ## **WA NO. 2111 OF 2023** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT WP(C) 39707/2023 OF HIGH COURT** ## **OF KERALA** ## **APPELLANT/S:** - 1 THE RETURNING OFFICER THUNJATH EZHUTHACHAN MALAYALAM UNIVERSITY, VAVAKKAD, THIRUR, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676502 - 2 VICE CHANCELLOR THUNJATH EZHUTHACHAN MALAYALAM UNIVERSITY, VAVAKKAD, THIRUR, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676502 - 3 ELECTION GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL CELL REPRESENTED BY DEAN/PROFESSOR, THUNJATH EZHUTHACHAN MALAYALAM UNIVERSITY, VAVAKKAD, THIRUR, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676502 - 4 THUNJATH EZHUTHACHAN MALAYALAM UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR VAVAKKAD, THIRUR, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676502 BY ADV P.C.SASIDHARAN ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 FAISAL IBRAYINTE PURAKKAL AGED 23 YEARS S/O. HANEEFA, IBRAYINTE PURAKKAL HOUSE VAKKAD P O MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676502 2 ANSEERA BEEGHUM P V AGED 23 YEARS D/O. MOHAMMED ASHRAF P.V., PALAKKAVALAPPIL, VATTAPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHENNARA P O, MALAPPURAM, PIN – 676561 WA No.2111 of 2023 -2- 3 KAMARIYA SANA K AGED 22 YEARS D/O. IBRAHIM, KARUVATHIL HOUSE, CHULLIPARA MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676508 **OTHER PRESENT:** ADV. P.E.SAJAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WA No.2111 of 2023 -3- ## **JUDGMENT** Dated this the 11[th] day of December, 2023 ## _**A.J.Desai, C.J.**_ By way of the present appeal filed under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, the Returning Officer of the Thunjath Ezhuthachan Malayalam University and others have challenged the orders dated 27.11.2023 and 29.11.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in the captioned writ petition. The order dated 27.11.2023 reads as under; _“Admit. Standing Counsel takes notice for the respondents._ _There will be a direction to the first respondent to provisionally accept the nomination submitted by the petitioners.”_ The order dated 29.11.2023 reads as under; _“The respondents to place on record a_ _counter affidavit regarding the averments. It is submitted that the nominations have been accepted pursuant to interim orders issued by_ WA No.2111 of 2023 -4- _this Court provisionally. The election may go on but the results of the election need not be declared.”_ 2. Learned Counsel for the first appellant/Returning Officer contended that, issuance of the aforesaid orders amounts to allowing the writ petition, without deciding the issues involved. He relied upon several decisions, including the decision of the Apex Court in _**State of U.P and Others v. Sandeep Kumar Balmiki and Others [2009 KHC 7224]**_ to contend that the final relief shall not be granted at the interim stage. He would submit that the Honourable Apex Court as well as this Court has ruled that the court should not interfere with the election process. He further submits that the orders be quashed and set aside. 3. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents/writ petitioners would submit that by the interim orders, the learned Single Judge directed the appellants to WA No.2111 of 2023 -5- accept the nomination and continue the election process as per the notification, except declaration of the result. He would submit that accepting the writ appeal would result in the writ petition itself being decided. He therefore would submit that the appeal may be dismissed. 4. We have heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties. 5. The question is with regard to the election of students Union and Student representative of General Council of the University. The Election programme declared by the University reads as under; _“4. The schedule of the election of Students Union and Student representative of General Council._ _1. 22.11.2023- Publication of election notification and beginning of submission of nomination forms._ _2. 22.11.2023 - Doubt clearance and clarifications regarding the electionAfternoon 3 pm_ WA No.2111 of 2023 -6- _3. 24.11.2023 - End of nomination submission - Till 12 noon._ _4. 24.11.2023 - Scrutiny of nominations at 1pm. The exhibition of names of those who have submitted valid nominations - Evening 5pm._ _5. 25.11.2023-Last chance to withdraw the nominations - Till afternoon 2pm_ _6. 27.11.2023- The exhibition of candidate final list - Afternoon 3pm._ _7. 28.11.2023- Beginning of Election campaign_ _8. 29.11.2023- End of election campaign (Till evening 3.30pm)_ _9. 29.11.2023- Meet the candidate, if needed only- Afternoon 2 pm_ _10.30.11.2023- Election (if needed) from morning 10am to afternoon 1 pm. (If by any chance, the declared date turns into a public holiday, the election will be held on the next working day)_ _11. 30.11.2023- Counting of votes from afternoon 2 pm. After this, declaration of results._ _Vakkad sd/-_ _22.11.2023 Returning Officer.”_ WA No.2111 of 2023 -7- 6. It is the case of the University that the first writ petitioner had submitted nomination form within time, i.e, on 24.11.2023. However, there was a mistake in the nomination form and therefore, the first writ petitioner's nomination was rejected and that was informed through phone. It is also the case of the University that, writ petitioners 2 and 3 did not submit their nomination forms in time and hence, there was no question of acceptance of nomination, which has been directed by the learned Single Judge. 7. On the other hand, the contention raised by the students is that the first writ petitioner had submitted his nomination form within the stipulated time period mentioned in the notification, i.e, on 24.11.2023 before 12 PM. But, the nomination paper was rejected without any valid reason. Even though the first writ petitioner enquired about the reason, the same WA No.2111 of 2023 -8- was not informed by the appellants. It is further contended that no communication was received on 24.11.2023 about the rejection of the nomination, otherwise he would have approached the grievance cell immediately. As far as writ petitioners 2 and 3 are concerned, they had correctly filled their nomination and the same was approved by the Finance Officer. Thereafter, it was attempted to be submitted to the Returning Officer, but was not accepted. Having considered the rival submissions and the order impugned in this appeal, we are of the opinion that allowing the appeal would tantamount to deciding the writ petition itself. We also note that, certain other documents produced by the writ petitioners under a separate application, are not placed on record in this appeal. Moreover, by order dated 29.11.2023, the learned Single Judge has directed not to declare the result of the petitioners. Hence, without WA No.2111 of 2023 -9- interfering with the interim orders impugned in this appeal, we dispose of the writ appeal with a direction to the learned Single Judge to decide the writ petition as early as possible, at any rate, within ten days from today, in accordance with law and without being influenced by the observations in the interim orders or by this judgment. We have also considered the fact that this case would only rely upon the facts scrutinized by the learned Single Judge. **sd/A.J.Desai Chief Justice** **sd/-** **V.G.Arun Judge** Scl/