IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 2ND ASHADHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 20069 OF 2022
PETITIONERS:
1 MUHAMMED ASIF M.A.
AGED 28 YEARS
S/O MUHAMMED ASHRAF,
4TH SEM UNITARY 3 YEAR LL.B. STUDENT,
GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695035
NOW RESIDING AT ASHRAF LAND,
MASTHANMUKKU, KANIYAPURAM
PALLIPURAM P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695031
2 SIMJO SAMUEL ZACHARIAH
AGED 27 YEARS
RESEARCH SCHOLAR AT LOYOLA COLLEGE OF SOCIAL
SCIENCES,
SREEKARYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695017
NOW RESIDING AT ARUNALAYAM, ERAVANKARA,
THAZHAKARA, ERAVANKARA,
ALAPPUZHA- 690108
3 BOBAN P.M.
AGED 22 YEARS, C/O LEENA BEEGAM K
2ND SEMESTER, M.A. ISLAMIC HISTORY STUDENT,
DEPARTMENT OF ISLAMIC HISTORY,
WEST ASIAN STUDIES, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA,
KARYAVATTOM CAMPUS,- 695581
NOW RESIDING AT MALANKAVIL PUTHEN VEEDU,
KUNDAYAM P.O.,
PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM-689695
BY ADVS.
T.I.UNNIRAJA
S.G.SREEKANTH
S.BADUSHA
SREEJITH S.
2
W.P.(C)No. 20069 of 2022.
JOEL ANTONY GEORGE
FAHEEM AHSAN.S
RESPONDENTS:
1 UNIVERSITY OF KERALA
SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS,
PALAYAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695034
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR
2 RETURNING OFFICER
UNIVERSITY OF KERALA,
SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS,
PALAYAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695034
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR., PIN - 695034
3 BISMINA S.
AGED 24 YEARS
D/O SHEMEENA BEEVI J.
1ST SEMESTER, B.ED ENGLISH,
SREE NARAYANA GURU KRIPA B.ED COLLEGE,
POTHENCODE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695584
NOW RESIDING AT 9/254, KULAPPURAYIL VEEDU,
NEAR CRPF CAMP, PALLIPURAM P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695316.
4 SARATH R.S.
AGED 25 YEARS
3
W.P.(C)No. 20069 of 2022.
1ST SEMESTER, B.ED SOCIAL SCIENCE,
ST. THOMAS TRAINING COLLEGE,
MUKKOLAKKAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695043
NOW RESIDING AT KP 5/327 SREE SHAILAM,
KOOLIYOTTUKONAM,
KUDAPPANAKUNNU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695043.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA
HAMZATH ALI V.K.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 23.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
4
W.P.(C)No. 20069 of 2022.
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2022. The petitioners, stated to be studying in Colleges affiliated to the University and in a Department of its, preferred nominations as candidates for the elections to its Union of Students, which is scheduled tomorrow (24.06.2022).
2. However, the nominations of the petitioners have been rejected solely for the reason that the signatures of their proposers and seconders were not genuine. The petitioners say that though they have not been intimated about any specific reason, they have been told that the afore is the cause for the rejection of 5 W.P.(C)No. 20069 of 2022.
their nominations and assert that this is illegal and unlawful. They thus pray that the University be directed to allow them also, to be included in the panel of candidates for the elections.
3. The afore submissions and request of Sri.Faheem Ahsan S. - learned counsel for the petitioners, were controverted by Sri.Thomas Abraham - learned Standing Counsel for the University, saying that even a mere glance through the nomination papers, in comparison to the admitted signatures of the proposers and seconders, would make it indubitable that their signatures in it are not the same. He argued that, as per the Statute 37 of the Kerala University (conduct of elections to various Authorities or Bodies) First Statues, 1974, (hereinafter referred to as the "First Statues") the 6 W.P.(C)No. 20069 of 2022.
Returning Officer is obliged to verify the nomination papers and reject them on its own motion, if it is found, interalia, that the signatures of candidates or seconders are not genuine or has been obtained by fraud. He submitted that this all that the Returning Office has done and handed over the originals of the Nomination Papers and the admitted signatures of the proposers and seconders across the Bar, to assert that their signatures in the former are totally at variance. He, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.
4. I have gone through the papers handed over by Sri.Thomas Abraham across the Bar and have evaluated them on the touchstone of the afore submissions and the materials on record.
5. True, at first glance, some of the signatures 7 W.P.(C)No. 20069 of 2022.
appear to be different; but thus by itself may not be sufficient for a rejection of the nomination papers under Statue 37 of the First Statutes. What was required to have been statutorily verified by the Returning Officer was whether the said signatures were genuine, or had been obtained by fraud. The afore provision also makes it incumbent upon the Returning Officer to conduct a summary enquiry, which is to mean to find the truth of any such allegations.
6. In the case at hand, it is admitted that the Returning Officer did not ask the proposers or the seconders about their signature in the Nomination Papers as to whether they were genuine or obtained from them through fraud. This is crucial because, the only person who can assert that his or her signature is obtained by 8 W.P.(C)No. 20069 of 2022.
fraud or is not genuine is that the same person himself/herself. Therefore, along with the other inputs, the Returning Officer certainly ought to have asked the persons whose signatures are found to be at variance, to confirm that it was not genuine - which is to mean that it was not put by them; or that it was obtained by fraud.
7. That being said, to a pointed question from this Court, Sri.Thomas Abraham - learned Standing Counsel for the University, conceded that there were no written objections against the nominations, but that the Returning Officer has acted on his own motion. Though such a power is certainly available to the Returning Officer, he ought to have exercised it with circumspectom, particularly, on the afore ground above, 9 W.P.(C)No. 20069 of 2022.
the chances of the elections being set aside, through a process of law, is extremely high.
8. I, therefore, asked Sri.Thomas Abraham it his client stands in the way of this Court granting affirmative relief in this writ petition, so that a subsequent Election Petition would not become inevitable. He fairly submitted that, if this Court is so inclined, then the petitioners' nominations can be accepted and their names included in the Panel; but that liberty may be reserved to the competent Authority of the University to adjourn the elections for a few days for such purpose.
In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition and declare that the nominations of the petitioners herein are liable to be accepted by the Returning Officer and included in the panel of candidates. Consequently, 10 W.P.(C)No. 20069 of 2022.
necessary steps shall be taken by the competent Authority in this regard, if so required, by adjourning the elections by a few days.
I make it clear that my afore observations are not to be construed as being an declaration on the law, but are only intended to help me to arrive at the afore conclusion; and therefore that every case in future shall be decided as per Regulation 37 of the First Statute, following the procedure stipulated therein implicitly.
sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE Raj/23.06.2022.
11W.P.(C)No. 20069 of 2022.
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20069/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS ExhibitP1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION OF ELECTION TO THE SENATE AND TO THE STUDENTS COUNCIL BY THE MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL COUNCIL OF THE KERALA UNIVERSITY UNION 2021-2022 DATED 09/06/2022 ExhibitP2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 17/06/2022 ExhibitP2(b) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 18/06/2022 ExhibitP3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE NOTARY PUBLIC ON 18/06/2022 ExhibitP4(a) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 17/06/2022 ExhibitP4(b) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 18/06/2022 ExhibitP5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 12 W.P.(C)No. 20069 of 2022.
NOTARY PUBLIC ON 18/06/2022 ExhibitP6(a) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 17/06/2022 ExhibitP6(b) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 18/06/2022