Bombay High Court
Yogesh Shamrao Muneshwar And ... vs The Vice Chancellor, Rashtra Sant ... on 21 November, 2017
Bench: B.R. Gavai
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
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
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.
