Bombay High Court
Prashant S/O Bhaskar Dekate And ... vs Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj ... on 14 December, 2022
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar, Anil Laxman Pansare
WP.7077.22
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.
...
WRIT PETITION NO. 7077/2022
1) Prashant s/o Bhaskar Dekate
Aged 51 years, occu: service
R/o Near Hanuman Mandir
Plot No.73, Rajabaksha, Medical Chowk
Nagpur.
2) Shilwant s/o Anmol Meshram
Aged 36 years, occu: service
Ward No.3 At & Post Sangadi
Sakoli, Dist. Bhandara.
3) Ankit s/o Bhagwat Raut
Aged 31 years, occu: service
R/o Sindewani Bk. Bichwa, Nagpur. ..PETITIONERS
versus
1) Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj
Nagpur Univerity, Nagpur
Through its Vice-Chancellor.
2) The Registrar
Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj
Nagpur University, Nagpur.
3) The Chancellor
Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj
Nagpur University, Nagpur.
4) The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary
Higher and Technical Education Department
Madam Cama Marg
Hutatma Rajguru Chowk
Mantralaya, Mumbai. ..RESPONDENTS
WP.7077.22
..................................................................................................................
Mr. U.S.Dastane, Advocate for Petitioners
Mr. S.M.Puranik, Advocate for Respondents 1 to 3
Mr. A.S.Fulzele, Additional Government Pleader for Respondent 4.
................................................................................................................
CORAM: A.S.CHANDURKAR & ANIL L. PANSARE, JJ
DATED : 14th December, 2022.
JUDGMENT: (Per Anil L.Pansare, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with
the consent of the parties.
2. The Petitioners have put forth the following substantive
prayers :-
(i) by issuing appropriate writ, order or direction, quash
and set aside the direction no.40 of 2022 dated 20.10.2022 at
Annexure II being illegal and bad in law.
(ii) by issuing appropriate writ, order or direction quash and
set aside the election programme/notification dated
20.10.2022 at Annexure I issued pursuant to direction No.40
of 2022 being illegal and bad in law.
3. It is the case of the Petitioners that the Petitioner Nos.1 and
2 were elected as Members of the Senate from the Graduate
Constituency of the Respondent No.1-University. All the Petitioners are
aspiring to contest the forthcoming Senate elections from Graduate
Constituency. The Respondent No.1 has issued a notification dated 20 th
October, 2022 declaring the election programme with respect to
WP.7077.22
elections of the Senate from the registered Graduate Constituency of the
Respondent No.1-University.
4. The grievance of the Petitioners is that the Respondents
have not followed the procedure laid down in the Maharashtra Public
Universities Act, 2016 ('Act of 2016', in short) so also the Uniform
Statute No.1/2017 ('US 1/2017' in short). It is also the case of the
Petitioners that Direction No.40/22 dated 20th October 2022, has been
issued in total contravention of the Act of 2016 as also US 1/2017,
which culminated in declaration of election of the Senate and the
notification dated 20th October,2022. The same being void ab initio,
being illegal and bad in law.
5. Mr. U.S.Dastane, learned counsel for the Petitioners has
taken us through various provisions of the Act of 2016 so also the US
1/2017, so as to contend that the whole exercise to declare the election
programme of the Senate is illegal and arbitrary. We will deal with his
arguments a little later.
6. Mr S.M.Puranik, learned Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3
has taken us through the reply, to contend that the Petitioners have
equal efficacious remedy under Section 140 of the Act of 2016 and since
the alternate remedy is available, the petition is not maintainable. He
further submits that Section 62(2) of the Act of 2016 makes it
WP.7077.22
mandatory to complete the process of Senate election by 30th November
of every year. The circumstances were such that if the elections were to
be conducted in terms of US 1/2017, there would have been violation
of Section 62(2) of the Act of 2016. In the circumstances, it was
necessary for the Vice-Chancellor of the Respondent 1-University to
exercise his powers vested under section 12(8) of the Act of 2016 to
modify the required time, as laid down in Rules 8, 9 and 10 of the US
1/2017. Accordingly, Direction No. 40/2022 came to be issued followed
by election programme which, according to Mr.Puranik, is in consonance
with the Act of 2016 and, as such, prayed for dismissal of the petition.
7. We have considered the rival submissions. Before we deal
with the controversy, it will be appropriate to lay our hands to the
relevant provisions of the Act of 2016 and US 1/2017.
(a) Chapter IV of the Act of 2016 deals with the authorities of
the Universities. Section 26 of the Act provides for authorities of the
Universities, namely the Senate, the Management Council, the Academic
Council and so on. Thus, the Senate is one of the authorities. Section 28
provides that the Senate shall be the principal authority for all financial
estimates and budgetary appropriations and for providing social
feedback to the University on current and future academic programmes.
The Senate consists of number of members. The Chancellor is a chair-
WP.7077.22
person, the other members are Vice-chancellor, Pro vice-Chancellor, the
Deans of the Faculties and many more. Ten registered graduates are
also the members of the Senate in terms of Section 28(2)(t). These
graduates are to be elected from amongst the collegium of registered
graduates.
(b) By virtue of Section 72(10) of the Act of 2016, the State
Government has power to prescribe uniform statutes on the subjects,
through publication in official gazette and such uniform statutes shall be
binding on all the Universities of the State.
(c) Section 71(13) provides for a statute with respect to
procedure for conduct of elections to various authorities and bodies of
the University.
(d) Section 76(2), the details relating to the elections which
are not specified in the Act, shall be prescribed by the statutes, and by
virtue of US 1/2017, State Government has prescribed, procedure
relating to conduct of elections to various authorities and bodies of the
Universities.
(e) Section 62(2) of the Act of 2016 mandates that the process
of election, nomination and co-option shall be commenced at least 3
months prior to the expiry of the term of the authority and shall be
completed not later than 30th November in that year.
WP.7077.22
(f) US 1/2017 is prescribed by the State Government, whereas
Clause 8 of the said Statute lays down the election and procedure for
preparation of electoral roll prior to holding elections.
(g) Clause 8(3) of the US 1/2017 provides that provisional
electoral rolls of persons entitled to vote at an election to the authorities
or bodies of the University shall be published on the election portal on
the official website of the University at least 45 clear days before the
date of election.
(h) Clause 8(5) thereof provides that the final electoral roll
shall be published at least 30 clear days before the election date.
(i) Clause 9 provides that the notice of election shall be given
by the Registrar of the University at least 25 clear days before the date of
election.
(j) Clause 10 provides that the candidate shall submit their
nomination for elections to various authorities and bodies in the
prescribed form.
8. The provisions of the Act of 2016 read with US 1/2017
makes it crystal clear that the process of election is to be completed not
later than 30th November of the year. In the present case, there is no
dispute that the term of the authority is complete and that the election
process ought to have been completed on or before 30 th November 2022.
WP.7077.22
Section 62(2) of the Act of 2016 further provides that the process of
election, nomination and co-option shall be commenced at least three
months prior to the expiry of the term of the authority. In that sense, the
process ought to have been commenced or on or about 1st September,
2022. The provisional electoral roll, as provided under the US 1/2017
was to be published 45 clear days before the date of election. Thus,
provisional electoral roll ought to have been published on or about 16 th
October, 2022. In similar lines, the final electoral roll ought to have
been published on or about 31st October 2022, the notice of election
ought to have been given by the Registrar at least 25 clear days before
the date of election viz. on or about 5th November, 2022. Last but not the
least, the US 1/2017 provides under Clause 10 that the candidate shall
submit their nominations in the prescribed form. The prescribed form is
Form 'A' and Form 'B'.
9. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, these
stipulations have been modified by the Vice-Chancellor under the garb
of Section 12 (8) of the Act of 2016, thereby amending Section 62(2) of
the Act of 2016 and the mandate under the provisions of US 1/2017.
The power to amend the Uniform Statute vests only with the State
Government and none else.
10. We have perused Direction No.40/2022 dated 20th October
WP.7077.22
2022 issued by the Vice-Chancellor which refers to various provisions of
the Act of 2016 and then lays down the justification for issuing
direction. The justification is to fulfill the mandate of Sub-section (2) of
Section 62 of the Act of 2016, it is not possible to comply with the
provisions of the US 1/2017 which prescribed time schedule and
procedure for preparation and publication of electoral roll and that
therefore, it was necessary to take some emergency and unprecedented
measures. Thereafter the Vice-Chancellor proceeds to issue multiple
directions under the name and style "The emergency Measures for
Election of Ten Registered Graduates from the Collegium of Registered
Graduates, Directions, 2022".
11. As noted above, the direction has been issued on 20th
October 2022. It declares that the election shall be held on 30th
November 2022. The direction has, thus, been issued 45 days prior to
the election. The time period of three months prescribed u/s. 62(2) of
the Act of 2016 so also the provisions of US 1/2017 has been given a
go-bye. The process of election, as stated earlier, ought to have been
commenced on or about 1st September, 2022. However, the direction
itself has been given on 20th October, 2022. Further, not only that time
prescribed under the Act of 2016 and US 1/2017 been amended, but
WP.7077.22
also the requirement of submission of nomination form in the prescribed
form. The amendment to that effect finds place in Clause 4 (a) of the
Directions which reads thus:
"a. Graduates of the University who have enrolled their
names in the register of Graduates after the elections of
Senate in the year 2017, their Form A for enrollment shall
also be treated as their consent and desire to enroll
themselves in the electoral roll for the registered graduates'
collegium under section 28(2) (t) of the Act and submission
of Form B for these graduates is not required."
12. Learned counsel for the Petitioners has taken strong
exception to the aforesaid amendment not only on the count that the
Vice-Chancellor has exceeded his jurisdiction but because he has
completely changed the mode of submission of the enrollment forms and
that the change carries a risk of enrollment of registered graduates, not
belonging to the Respondent 1-University.
13. On this point, he has drawn our attention to Section 131 of
the Act of 2016 which reads thus,
"131. Registered graduates.
(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), the following
persons shall be entitled to have their names entered in the register
of registered graduates or deemed to be registered graduates,
maintained by the university, namely :-
(a) who are graduates of the university;
(b) who are graduates of the parent university from which
corresponding new university is established :
WP.7077.22
Provided that, the graduates registered in the parent
university as registered graduates but residing in the jurisdiction of
the new university will have to apply for registration, as registered
graduates, to the new university and once registered with the new
university, they will automatically cease to be the registered
graduates of the parent university.
(2) A person who -
(a) is of unsound mind and stands so declared by a competent
court; or
(b) is an undischarged insolvent; or
(c) is convicted for an offence involving moral turpitude; or
(d) has obtained a degree by fraudulent means; or
(e) is a registered graduate of any other university established
by law in the State, shall not be qualified to have his name entered
in the register of graduates, or be a registered graduate.
(3) Every person who intends to be a registered graduate shall
make an application to the Registrar in such form and make
payment of such fees as may be prescribed by the Statutes.
(4) The Vice-chancellor shall, after making such enquiry as he
thinks fit, decide whether the person is entitled to be a registered
graduate. If any question arises whether a person is entitled to have
his name entered in the register of graduates or be a registered
graduate or is not qualified to be a registered graduate, it shall be
decided by the Vice Chancellor after making such inquiry as he
thinks fit and his decision shall be final.
(5) From amongst the persons registered as registered graduate,
an electoral college shall be constituted for election of members of
the Senate under Clause (t) of sub-section (2) of Section 28, and
for that purpose, an electoral roll shall be prepared as prescribed
by publishing a public notice, requiring the registered graduates
desirous of enrolling themselves in such electoral roll to fill in the
prescribed form for such enrollment." (emphasis now)
WP.7077.22
14. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that Sub-section
(3) of Section 131 provides that the person who intends to be registered
graduate shall make an application to the Registrar in such form as may
be prescribed by the Statute. The form so prescribed is form 'A'.
Similarly, he submits that sub-section (5) of Section 131 provides that
from amongst these registered graduates an electoral college is to be
constituted for election of members of the Senate under clause (t) of
sub-section (2) of Section 28 and for that purpose an electoral roll is to
be prepared requiring the registered graduates desirous of enrolling
themselves in such electoral roll to fill in the prescribed form. The
prescribed form is form 'B'.
15. The learned counsel for the Petitioners has drawn our
attention to Clause (4) of the said Form. It requires the candidate
seeking enrolment in electoral roll of a particular University to declare
that the candidate is not a registered graduate of any other University
established by law in the State of Maharashtra and that the candidate is
registered graduate in the faculty of the Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj
Nagpur University, Nagpur i.e. Respondent 1-University.
16. Mr. Dastane submits that the aforesaid direction
discriminates the persons enrolled in the Register of Registered
Graduates prior to 2017, because they are required to submit form 'B',
WP.7077.22
whereas the persons who have registered their names in the Register of
Registered Graduates after 2017 are not required to submit form 'B'.
17. It is accordingly argued that the Vice-Chancellor by
incorporating Clause (4) in the Direction No.40/2022 has committed a
grave error as graduates who have enrolled their names in the register of
graduates after the year 2017 will now be treated as graduates who
have given their consent to enroll their names for electoral roll of the
Respondent No.1-University. Thus, the graduates registered after the
year 2017 will now be not required to give declaration that they do not
belong to any other University and that they are registered graduates of
the Respondent 1-University only. This arrangement will go completely
contrary to the provisions of Act of 2016, so also the US 1/2017. This
causes discrimination between the graduates registered prior to 2017
and those registered after the year 2017.
18. As against this, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1
to 3 contended that the Direction No.40/2022 has been issued in terms
of provisions of Section 12(8) of the Act of 2016 and that the Vice-
Chancellor was well within his jurisdiction to issue such direction to
fulfill the mandate of Section 62 of the Act of 2016 viz. to complete the
election by 30th November, 2022. The direction has been issued because
of paucity of time and that the Vice-Chancellor has ensured that no
WP.7077.22
discrimination of whatsoever nature will be caused to the stakeholders.
19. The question, therefore, revolves around the scope of
Section 12(8) of the Act of 2016. Section 12 (8) reads as under :-
12(8) : Where any matter is required to be regulated
by the Statutes, Ordinances or Regulations, but no Statutes,
Ordinances or Regulations are made in that behalf or where
there is an exigency to amend Statutes, Ordinances or
Regulations, the Vice-chancellor may, for the time being, regulate
the matter by issuing such directions as he thinks necessary, and
shall, at the earliest opportunity thereafter, place them before the
Management Council or other authority or body concerned for
approval. He shall, at the same time, place before such authority
or body for consideration the draft of the Statutes, Ordinances or
Regulations, as the case may be, required to be made in that
behalf :
Provided that, such direction shall have to be converted
into Statute, ordinance or Regulations as the case may be, within
six months of issuing such direction failing which such direction
shall automatically lapse."
20. We have minutely gone through the wordings of Sub-
section (8) of Section 12 of the Act of 2016. The Vice-chancellor has
been entrusted with wide powers under sub-section (8). It provides
that the matter which is required to be regulated by the Statutes,
Ordinances or Regulations but no such Statutes, Ordinance or
Regulations are made in that behalf, the Vice-Chancellor may for the
time being regulate such matters by issuing such directions as he think
necessary. In the present case, the election of Senate is regulated by
the US 1/2017. Thus, this part of sub-section (8) will not empower
WP.7077.22
the Vice-Chancellor to issue directions. The impugned directions
appear to have been issued by virtue of later part of Sub-section (8)
which authorizes the Vice-Chancellor to amend the Statutes,
Ordinances or Regulations for the time being in case there is an
exigency to do so. The Vice-Chancellor has to then place the
directions before the Management Council or other authorities for
approval along with draft of the statute, ordinance or regulation, as
the case may be. The proviso to Sub-section (8) provides that such
directions shall be converted into statute, ordinance or regulation
within six months from issuance of the directions failing which the
direction shall stand automatically lapsed.
21. The overall reading of Sub-section (8) of Section 12 of
the Act of 2016 would make it amply clear that there has to be an
exigency to amend the regulation and that the exigency must be such
that it cannot wait for enactment or amendment. Therefore, as an
interim arrangement, the Vice-Chancellor will be justified in making
certain provisions including amending existing provisions. The interim
arrangement is to be then converted into permanent feature. Since it
is mandatory to convert the direction into permanent regulation
within six months of issuance of direction. The consequence of failure
to convert direction into regulation shall render the direction
WP.7077.22
ineffective because the direction will be lapsed automatically. Thus,
the amendment so made will apply to future elections as well.
22. The exigency as referred to in sub-section(8) will have to
be understood in the light of what has been discussed herein-above.
The exigency, in the present case, is to complete election of the
Senate by 30th November, 2022. The amendment is, thus, proposed
only for the present election of the Senate meaning thereby that in
future the Senate election will not be governed by the proposed
amendment. This amendment, therefore, cannot be converted into
regulation. In fact, it is not even the case of the Respondents that the
amendment proposed under the impugned direction will have to be
converted into regulation. The wording of direction itself indicates
that this amendment is proposed only for the present election and
that because of paucity of time, the time schedule and the submission
of nomination in the prescribed form has been given a go-bye.
23. There is nothing on record to show as to why did the
Respondents could not commence the process of election on 1 st
September, 2022. What transpires from the pleadings and arguments
is that the Respondent-authorities failed to adhere to the provisions
of the Act of 2016 and US 1/2017 and that after realising their
mistake, have taken aid of the extraordinary power of Vice-
WP.7077.22
Chancellor, u/s 12(8) of the Act of 2016. The exigency is, thus,
created exigency which has not cropped up unexpectedly. The
extraordinary power which carries extraordinary duty, in our
considered view, is not meant to rectify the mistake. The interim
arrangement as envisaged under Sub-section (8) of Section 12 is to
meet the exigency where the matter is required to be regulated by
statute or regulation. The main object of sub-section (8) appears to us
to issue directions in the exigency, which is of such a nature that
requires provisions in the statues, ordinances or regulations, as the
case may be, for all time to come.
24. In the present case, the so called exigency is to complete
the election process by 30th November, 2022. It was well within the
knowledge of the Respondents that it is to be do done and for that
purpose the election process was to be commenced from 1st
September, 2022. The statute so also the regulations to that effect is
in place. The only requirement was that the authorities ought to have
been alive to the said provisions. We were informed that the elections
in all the Universities, except this, have been held in terms of the
provisions of the Act and the Regulations. In the present case, the
authorities somehow missed the date and suddenly woke up and
issued directions, thereby giving a go-bye to the provisions of the Act
WP.7077.22
and regulations. This exigency is thus created.
25. There is another angle to look into the matter. Learned
counsel for the Petitioners has rightly argued that by US 1/2017 the
Government of Maharashtra has prescribed the Uniform Statute
relating to procedure for conduct of elections to various authorities
and bodies of the University in exercise of powers conferred by sub-
sec.(10) of Section 72 read with sub-Sec.(13) of Section 17 and
Section 67 of the Act of 2016. Thus, these powers are vested with the
Government of Maharashtra. The provisions therein will apply to all
the Universities in the State. The Vice-Chancellor of one University
will, therefore, lack the jurisdiction to amend the provisions of the
Act of 2016 so also US 1/2017, which is applicable to all the
Universities.
26. Further, the powers u/s 12 (8) of the Act of 2016, if said
to be powers delegated to the Vice-Chancellor, he cannot upset the
substantive provisions of the Act or the regulations. What the Vice-
Chancellor has done in the present case, is that he has completely
modified the time schedule and also the necessity to submit the
nomination in prescribed form. This act of the Vice-Chancellor is ultra
vires the provisions of the Act of 2016 and US 1/2017. If the
impugned direction is to be upheld, it would amount to ratifying the
WP.7077.22
excessive delegation in the hands of the authority, which is not
permissible. It would, in a way, be an abdication of the legislative
function by the executive. The delegation cannot be and must not be
unguided, unfettered and uncontrolled. In the present case, the
impugned direction issued by the Vice-Chancellor under the delegated
powers goes beyond the statutes and regulations. In other words, it
goes beyond the enabling or parent Act and the Regulations. The
impugned order has amended the provisions of the Act of 2016 and
the US 1/2017 which, clearly is, without jurisdiction, because the
provision does not enable the executive to perform or discharge the
duties and function of the legislature.
27. Further, the crux of issuance of direction is/was to fulfill
the mandate of sub-Sec.(2) of Section 62 to complete the election by
30th November, 2022. The Respondents, in reply, have now pleaded
that in view of the receipt of several representations to extend the
date of voting the election programme has been extended and that
the elections will be held on 11th December 2022. In our view, the
very foundation for issuance of direction is destroyed by these
pleadings of the Respondents. If the election programme could be
extended, that too on the basis of receipt of representations it will not
lie in the mouth of the Respondents to even pronounce the term
WP.7077.22
'exigency' much less to place reliance upon the said term. On the top
of it, learned Advocate for the Respondents 1 to 3 submitted during
the course of arguments that the elections will have to be further
extended in view of the visit of Hon'ble Prime Minister to Nagpur
scheduled on 11th December, 2022. He has submitted that election
will now be held some time in January, 2023. However, we were later
informed that the decision has been taken to hold election on 17th
December, 2022. We find that the election programme is being
extended at the drop of the hat. The significance of its compliance on
30th November has been completely lost sight of and if it could be ,
the impugned order/direction cannot stand scrutiny of law.
28. Mr. Dastane, learned counsel for the Petitioners has relied
upon the following judgments in support of case of the Petitioners :-
1) (Ritesh Tiwari vs. State of UP) : AIR 2010 SC 3823
2) (C.Albert Morris vs.K.Chandrasekaran)(2006) 1 SCC 228
3) J N Ganatra vs. Morvi Municipality : (1996) 9 SCC 495
4) Upen Gogoi vs. State of Assam & others : (1988) 3 SCC 381
5) S. Misra vs. State of Orissa & ors. (2004) 8 SCC 599
6) C.I.T. Mumbai vs. Anjum, Ghaswala : (2002) 1 SCC 633
7) Karbhari & Ors. vs. Deepak Chengede:(2019) SCC Online 992
8) Judgments in CWP No.4980/2006 (Balwir Singh vs. Financial
Commissioner Punjab and others)
The first six judgments have been relied in support of the
contention of the Petitioners that if any order or action is bad or
WP.7077.22
unlawful since its inception, then it does not get sanctified at a later
stage and cannot validate any further order or action which is not
lawful at the inception. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that it is
settled legal proposition that if an order is bad in inception, it does not
get sanctified at a later stage. The Apex Court has also held that it is well
settled position of law that power under a statute has to be exercised in
accordance with the provisions of the statutes, and in no other manner.
It is also held that it is a normal rule of interpretation that when a
statute vests certain power in an authority to be exercised in a particular
manner then the said authority has to exercise it only in the manner
provided in the statute itself.
29. We do find, in the present case, that the Vice-Chancellor
has not exercised his powers in the manner as provided in the statute
nor is the election programme declared in the manner as provided in the
statute and the regulation. We further find that the impugned order/
direction is unlawful at its inception and, therefore, cannot be sanctified
at a later stage. In fact, and as stated earlier, the Respondents have not
even argued that they intend to sanctify the amendment made by way
of impugned direction.
30. The judgments cited at Sr.Nos.(7) and (8) have been relied
on by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners on the point that the
WP.7077.22
election programme must be in accordance with the governing statutes
and not otherwise. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Karbhari and
others (supra), while dealing with the election of Kamgar Sabha in
terms of the clauses of its constitution, found that the election was not
processed in terms of the provisions of the constitution. The Court held
that howsoever laudable the objective may be, the Election Officer could
not have been beyond the confines of the constitution of the Sabha and
could not have imported into which were not rooted in the constitution
of the Sabha and that the election programme must be completed in
accordance with the governing statutes and the constitution of the
Sabha.
31. In the present case as well, the election programme ought
to have been commenced and completed in accordance with the Act of
2016 and US 1/2017. The impugned direction, therefore, and in view
of the discussion made herein-above, is without jurisdiction and ultra
vires to the provisions of the Act of 2016.
32. So far as the objection of maintainability is concerned, the
law is well settled that the alternate remedy will not be a bar to
exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, at
least in three contingencies, namely, (i) where the writ petition seeks
enforcement of any of the fundamental rights; (ii) where there is
WP.7077.22
failure of principles of natural justice ; or (iii) where the orders or
proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is
challenged. In the present case, the impugned order/direction falls in
the third category, i.e. where the order is wholly without jurisdiction
33. For the reasons aforesaid and in view of the law laid down,
we allow the writ petition in terms of Prayer clauses (i) and (ii) and
direct the Respondents to take immediate steps to commence and
complete the election in issue in accordance with the provisions of the
Act of 2016 read with provisions of US 1/2017.
34. Rule made absolute accordingly. No costs.
(ANIL L. PANSARE,J.) (A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.)
sahare
Digitally Signed ByNARENDRA
BHAGWANTRAO SAHARE
Location:
Signing Date:14.12.2022 11:36
