Writ Appeal No. 328 of 2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/9TH PHALGUNA 1934 WA.No. 328 of 2013 IN WP(C).3537/2013 ----------------------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C).3537/2013 DATED 11/02/2013 ........................ ## APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: ------------------------------ 1. PROF (DR) JAGANNATHAN P.K @ JAGANNATHAN POOVATHUM KANDY AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.RAMANUNNI, PRINCIPAL SNDPYSSCOLLEGE, KUNNAPPALLY P.O., PERINTHALMANNA MALAPPURAM. 2. PROF.P.N.ABDURAHIMAN, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O.VEERAN, PRINCIPAL NOBLE WOMENS COLLEGE, MANJERI, PULLENCHERI P.O. MALAPPURAM - 676 122. 3. PROF.(DR) P.K.YAQOOB, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.LATE KUNJUMUHAMMED PRINCIPAL, ANSAR WOMENS COLLEGE PERUMPILAVU KARIKKAD P.O. THRISSUR - 680 519. 4. PROF(MAJOR) K.IBRAINE, AGED 57 YEARS, SO.K.ABDULLA PRIYADARSHINI ARTS AND SCIENCE COLLEGE, MALAPPURAM. 5. PROF.(DR) T.MOHAMED, AGED 67 S/O.AHAMED, PRINCIPAL, MHES COLLEGE, CHERANDATHUR, VADAKARA - 673 541. 6. PROF.P.P.MOHAMMED, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.HUSSAN, ISS ARTS AND SCIENCE COLLEGE, PRINCIPAL, PONNIAKURISHU P.O. PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM. 7. PROF.P.P.AHAMED, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.HUSSAN, PRINCIPAL, NASARA COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCE, THIRUKAD P.O., MALAPPURAM 8. PROF.M.ABDUL AZEEZ, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.ATHU HAJI, PRINCIPAL, FAROOK ARTS AND SCIENCE COLLEGE PARAPPUR PO.KOTTAKKAL - 676 503. 9. PROF.O.K.MUHAMMED ALI, AGED 58, S/O.SAIDUTTY HAJI, PRINCIPAL, KMO ARTS AND SCIENCE COLLEGE, KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE. WA.No. 328 of 2013 10. PRINCIPALS COUNCIL OF UNAIDED COLLEGES (CALICUT UNIVERSITY) SNDPYSS COLLEGE, KUNNAPPALLY, PERINTHALMANNA REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, PROF(DR) JAGANNATHAN P.K AGED 57 YEARS S/O.RAMAUNNI, PRINCIPAL, SNDPYSS COLLEGE KUNNAPPALLY P.O., PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM. ## BY ADVS.SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU SRI.JAGAN GEORGE ## RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------- 1. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, THENJIPALAM, UNIVERSITY P.O., CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR 673 685. 2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, THENJIPALAM, UNIVERSITY P.O., CALICUT 673 685. 3. THE REGISTRAR AND RETURNING OFFICER FOR CONDUCTING ELECTION TO THE SENATE OF THE UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT THENJIPALAM, UNIVERSITY P.O., CALICUT 673 685. ## BY SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW,SC,CALICUT UNIVERSITY THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-02-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WA.No. 328 of 2013 ## APPENDIX ## APPELLANTS' EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE A : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 30.10.2012 IN WPC No.25199 OF 2012. ANNEXURE B : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.01.2013 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC No.29673 OF 2012. /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE ## **Manjula Chellur, C.J. & K. Vinod Chandran, J.** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## W.A. No. 328 OF 2013 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28[th] day of February, 2013 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Manjula Chellur, C.J.** The writ petitioners who are aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.3537 of 2013 dated 11.02.2013 are before us. 2. Appellants 1 to 9 are Principals of Self Financing/Unaided Colleges affiliated to the 1[st] respondent University and 10[th] appellant is their Association. It is not in dispute that by Ext.P5 the University issued an Election Notification to the Senate in terms of the provisions contained in Statute 17 of the Calicut University (Conduct of Elections to various Authorities or Bodies) First Statutes, 1975. Petitioners approached the learned Single Judge seeking the following reliefs: “i) Declare that the petitioners 1 to 9 and Principals of other Self Financing/Unaided Colleges, affiliated to the 1[st] respondent University, are eligible and entitled to be included in the Electoral Roll for the constituency of the Principals for the purpose of election of the Principals, under Item No.(1) under 'Elected Members' of Section 17 of the Calicut University Act, 1975; WA No. 328 of 2013 -:2:- ii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order directing the respondents to include the names of the petitioners and Principals of other Self Financing/Unaided Colleges, affiliated to the 1[st] respondent University, in the Electoral roll for the constituency of the Principals for the purpose of election of the Principals, under item No.(1) under 'Elected Members' of Section 17 of the Calicut University Act, 1975, for the ensuing election notified under Exhibit P5; and iii) pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court shall deem just.” 3. The stand of the 1[st] respondent University before the learned Single Judge was, final electoral roll has to be published as per Statute 13 of the First Statutes, 1975 prior to the date of Election Notification. In the present case, such final electoral roll was published on 01.12.2012 and the publication of date of election is 23.01.2013. According to the appellants, in spite of approaching the authorities concerned with their objection regarding non-inclusion of their names in the electoral roll, the authorities did not act upon that, in spite of a judgment of this Court in similar circumstances, therefore, they sought for the above prayers. It is necessary to refer to some of the Statutes. As per Statute 12 of the First Statutes, 1975 how the WA No. 328 of 2013 -:3:- electoral roll has to be maintained is clearly indicated which reads as under: ## “ _**12. Maintenance of Electoral Rolls**_ :- The Returning Officer shall maintain an electoral roll for each electoral body entitled to elect members at any election conducted by the University, showing the names and addresses of all persons. Provided that the Ex-Officio members of the authorities of the University representing the Government need be shown in the Electoral Roll only by their designation.” 4. As per Statute 13 publication of electoral roll has to be made. Statute 15 refers to correction, alterations etc in electoral roll and how the final electoral roll has to be accordingly modified is indicated. It specifically indicates within what time such corrections have to be brought to the notice of the authorities concerned and how it should be carried out. We extract Statue 15 of the First Statutes, 1975 hereunder: ## “ _**15. Corrections, alterations, etc., in electoral**_ _**roll**_ .- It shall be competent for the Returning Officer to make any addition, correction alteration or deletion in any electoral roll, provided that the fact necessitating such correction or alteration or deletion is brought to his notice within 15 days after the publication of the electoral roll and that he is satisfied that such correction or alteration or deletion is ” necessary. WA No. 328 of 2013 -:4:- 5. In the present case, as per the above Statutes, 30 days prior to the publication of Election Notification, the electoral roll was published. The question is whether these appellants/writ petitioners approached the authorities bringing to their notice the non-inclusion of their names seeking correction in the final electoral roll. According to the appellants' counsel, there was a fresh notification of final electoral roll on 21.01.2013, therefore, their application dated 22.01.2013 for inclusion of their names is within the time as contemplated under Statute 15 of the First Statutes 1975. 6. As against this, learned Standing Counsel representing the University brings to our notice that by virtue of a judgment (Annexure -B) dated 18.01.2013, an occasion arose to publish modified final electoral roll including the name of the writ petitioner therein. Otherwise, it was not an exercise taken by the authorities concerned and it was only an exercise at the instance of the Court direction. When the Court intervenes giving direction to the University to consider the name of the writ petitioner, unless the writ petitioner's name finds a place in the WA No. 328 of 2013 -:5:- electoral roll, he will not be allowed to do anything as indicated in the Statutes; either to give nomination or to vote during the elections. Therefore, such modification of the electoral roll was occasioned on account of Court's intervention. Apparently, in this case, none of the petitioners approached the authorities concerned, bringing to their notice that their names did not find a place in the final electoral roll as required under Statute 15 within 15 days after publication of the electoral roll on 01.12.2012. They cannot bank upon the modified electoral roll which had to be published for other reason, in the absence of any specific direction by the Court in the judgment at Annexure-B that all those names which were not included in the Electoral Roll had to be included. On the other hand, there is a specific restriction indicating that only the names of the writ petitioners alone are to be included in the electoral roll. 6. In that view of the matter, it is not still open to the appellants/writ petitioners to contend that a benefit similar to the nature indicated at Annexure-B deserves to be given to them. If the University, on its own, had taken the exercise of publishing WA No. 328 of 2013 -:6:- modified electoral roll, then there is justification in the argument of the appellants to contend that there is discrimination so far as non-inclusion of their names are concerned. In the present case, in the absence of seeking redressal of their grievance within the time frame, no such rights could be claimed by the appellants/writ petitioners, therefore, we find no good ground to interfere with the observations of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. However, it is pertinent to mention that in order to conduct the election smoothly, the University has to take all care and caution which has been laid down vide the decision reported in **University of Kerala v. Sankaran Nampoothiry** [2005(1) KLT 229] by a Division Bench of this Court while preparing the final electoral roll, in future. **Manjula Chellur, Chief Justice.** **K. Vinod Chandran, Judge.** ttb/28/02 WA No. 328 of 2013 -:7:-