1 WP-7037,7039-17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Writ Petition No.7037 of 2017
1. Yogesh Shamrao Muneshwar
Age : 43 years, Occupation : Service
2. Prof: Niranjan B. Brahmane,
Age : 45 years, Occupation : Service
3. Prof: Arvind B. Patil,
Age : 42 years, Occupation : Service
4. Prof: Dr Ravindra R. Sahare,
Age : 36 years, Occupation : Service
5. Prof: Sonali R. Khandekar,
Age : 34 years, Occupation : Service
6. Kalpana M. Bandiwar,
Age : 36 years, Occupation : Service.
Petitioner Nos.1 to 6 are all having their
addresses at Aniket College of Social Work,
Station Faeel, Deoli Road, Dayal Nagar,
Wardha : 442001.
.. PETITIONERS
.. Versus ..
1. The Vice Chancellor,
Rashtra Sant Tukdoji Maharaj
Nagpur University, Nagpur,
Civil Lines, Nagpur.
2. The Registrar,
Rashtra Sant Tukdoji Maharaj
Nagpur University, Nagpur,
Civil Lines, Nagpur.
3. Aniket Social Work,
Wardha through its Principal,
having its addresses at
Station Faeel, Deoli Road, Dayal Nagar,
Wardha : 442001.
::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2017 01:51:08 :::
2 WP-7037,7039-17.odt
.. RESPONDENTS
WITH
Writ Petition No.7039 of 2017
1. Prof: Dr Ravindra R. Sahare,
Age:36 years, Occupation Service,
having address at Aniket College of Social Work,
Station Faeel, Deoli Road, Dayal Nagar,
Wardha : 442001.
2. Prof: Arvind B. Patil,
Age:42 years, Occupation Service,
having address at Aniket College of Social Work,
Station Faeel, Deoli Road, Dayal Nagar,
Wardha : 442001.
3. Prof: Sonali R. Khandekar,
Age:34 years, Occupation Service,
having address at Aniket College of Social Work,
Station Faeel, Deoli Road, Dayal Nagar,
Wardha : 442001.
.. PETITIONERS
.. Versus ..
1. The Vice Chancellor,
Rashtra Sant Tukdoji Maharaj
Nagpur University, Nagpur,
Civil Lines, Nagpur.
2. The Registrar,
Rashtra Sant Tukdoji Maharaj
Nagpur University, Nagpur,
Civil Lines, Nagpur.
3. Aniket College of Social Work,
Wardha through its Principal,
having its addresses at
Station Faeel, Deoli Road, Dayal Nagar,
Wardha : 442001.
.. RESPONDENTS
Mr. R.D. Dhande, Advocate for Petitioners.
Mr. P.B. Patil, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
Mr. V.P. Marpakwar, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
...
::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2017 01:51:08 :::
3 WP-7037,7039-17.odt
CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & MRS. SWAPNA S. JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : NOVEMBER 21, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (per B.R. Gavai, J. )
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. The petitioners have approached this Court being aggrieved by the orders of the Hon'ble Vice Chancellor dated 12.10.2017 and 16.10.2017 thereby rejecting the appeals filed by the present petitioners against the order of the Registrar-cum- Returning Officer dated 05.10.2017 rejecting the objections of the petitioners.
3. The respondent -University has issued Direction No.20-C of 2017 under Section 28 (2) of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") thereby prescribing procedure for election to the Senate/Board of Studies of the University.
4. As per the Notification issued by the University, online information was to be submitted along with the hard copy to the University by 13.09.2017.
5. It appears that since the respondent-College did not submit the online information, the names of the petitioners were not found in the voters' list. The petitioners, therefore, raised the objections within the prescribed period. The same came to be rejected vide order dated 05.10.2017. The appeals preferred ::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2017 01:51:08 ::: 4 WP-7037,7039-17.odt against the same also came to be rejected.
6. Mr.Patil, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- University submitted that as per the Direction , it was mandatory that the online information ought to have been given. Since the College did not send the same, the petitioners' names were rightly not included in the voters list.
7. For appreciating the controversy, it will be appropriate to refer to Clause Nos. 11, 14 and 15 of the Directions referred hereinabove:-
"11. In response to the written letter or public notification, issued by the Registrar, in this behalf, every Principal of the college and Director of the recognised institution shall furnish information, online, to the Registrar, within such time, as may be specified in the letter and the public notification. The hard copy of the same shall be submitted in the University office as notified.
14. Objections, if any, in regard to the "Provisional Electoral Roll" of Principals and Directors may be filed, in writing, with the Registrar, within five days including the date of publication of the provisional electoral roll on the Election Portal, under his/her signature.
15. The Registrar shall then decide the objections, so made to him within three days from the last date of receipt of the same and shall inform his decision to the concerned persons in writing under his signature and immediately published the corrected electoral roll on the election portal."
8. No doubt that Shri Patil is right in contending that under Direction No.11 the College is required to submit an information by online process within the prescribed period, however, hard copy is also required to be submitted to the University. The perusal of the ::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2017 01:51:08 ::: 5 WP-7037,7039-17.odt Direction No.14 would reveal that the voter is entitled to raise an objection within five days of the date of publication of the provisional electoral roll and thereafter the Registrar is required to decide the same within three days from the last date of receipt of the same.
9. Undisputedly the petitioners have raised their objections within the prescribed period. The only ground on which the objections are rejected is that the information was not submitted by online process. The very purpose for providing Clause Nos. 14 and 15 is to consider the objection regarding inclusion/exclusion of the voters in the voters list. If the College commits an error, an eligible voter cannot be penalised for the same. It is not the case of the respondent-University that the petitioners are not entitled to be included in the voters list.
10. In that view of the matter, we find that for an error committed by the respondent-University, the petitioners cannot be deprived of their valuable right of being a voter to the Election.
11. Rule is, therefore, made absolute by quashing and setting aside the impugned orders and directing the respondent
-University to include the names of the petitioners in the constituencies to which they belong. No costs.
(Mrs. Swapna S. Joshi, J. ) (B.R. Gavai, J.) ...
halwai/p.s.
::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2017 01:51:08 :::