Abhimanyu Singh vs Delhi University & Others
2009 Latest Caselaw 3413 Del

45.
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+     W.P.(C) 11223/2009

                                  Date of decision: 27th August, 2009

      ABHIMANYU SINGH                              ..... Petitioner
                    Through Mr. Navin Kumar Jaggi, Mr. R.C. Nangia
                    & Mr. M.K. Singh, Advocates.

                    versus

      DELHI UNIVERSITY & ORS.                      ..... Respondents
                     Through Mr. Mohinder Rupal, Advocate.

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

      1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
      allowed to see the judgment?
      2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
      3. Whether the judgment should be reported
      in the Digest ?

                               ORDER

%

1. The petitioner had filed nomination to contest election for the post

of President of the Delhi University Student Union. The said nomination

has been rejected in view of clause 6.5.6 of the Lyngdoh Committee

recommendations, which have been made applicable in terms of interim

directions passed by the Supreme Court in University of Kerala versus

Council, Principals, Colleges Kerala and others, (2006) 8 SCC 304.

After the said judgment, the Lyngdoh Committee recommendations have

been accepted by University of Delhi. Accordingly, code of conduct for

W.P. (C) No. 11223/2009 Page 1 candidates contesting DUSU elections in the year 2009-10 has been issued

and enforced. The relevant portion of the Lyngdoh Committee

recommendations and the Supreme Court judgment under which the

petitioner has been barred and his nomination has been rejected, read as

under:-

"6.5.6 The candidate shall have one opportunity to contest for the post of office-bearer, and two opportunities to contest for the post of an executive member."

2. It is an accepted case of the petitioner that the petitioner had filed

nomination and contested for the post of Vice-President of Delhi University

Student Union in the year 2006. Learned counsel for the petitioner,

however, submits that Clause 6.5.6 is not applicable as the elections for

the year 2006 were before the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 22 nd

September, 2006 in the case of University of Kerala (supra). He states

that the code of conduct has not been given retrospective operation and

the Supreme Court in the said judgment has held as under:-

"7. .......It is made clear that the recommendations made, which we have accepted to be adopted as an interim measure, shall be followed in all college/university elections, to be held hereinafter, until further orders."

3. The aforesaid contention does not have merit. The

recommendations or the order passed by the Supreme Court is not being

given retrospective effect and is not being applied to elections held before

W.P. (C) No. 11223/2009 Page 2 the date of the judgment, i.e., 22nd September, 2006. Elections in which

the petitioner's nomination has been rejected are being conducted in the

year 2009. In terms of Clause 6.5.6, the petitioner's nomination has been

rejected because he had earlier participated and contested the elections

for the post of Vice-President in the year 2006. This does not mean that

the respondents are giving retrospective effect to the said

recommendations/order. The respondents are implementing the Supreme

Court directions as of today. The contentions fail to notice difference

between retroactive and retrospective operation.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent-University of Delhi, who appears

on advance notice states that the petitioner herein Mr. Abhimanyu Singh

had earlier filed W.P. (C) No. 6337/2007 challenging the recommendations

and the code of conduct introduced by University of Delhi pursuant to

directions of the Supreme Court in the case of University of Kerala

(supra). The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order

dated 27th August, 2007 after issuing certain directions. One of the

directions given was that the elections should be strictly in accordance

with the directions given by the Supreme Court in the University of Kerala's

case (supra) and in case there is any discrepancy between model code of

conduct and the directions stipulated in the judgment, the judgment will

prevail. The said judgment was upheld by a Division Bench on an appeal

filed by one Mr. A.A. Vikas Dahia.

W.P. (C) No. 11223/2009 Page 3

5. The factum that the petitioner had earlier challenged the

recommendations and had filed W.P. (C) No. 6337/2007, is not mentioned

in the writ petition. However, learned counsel on instructions from the

petitioner admits that the said writ petition was in fact filed and apologizes

for the said lapse.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that another candidate

Mr. A. Amandeep Mathur is also disqualified from contesting the elections

for the same reason but his nomination has not been rejected. Learned

counsel for the respondent states that the said averment is incorrect and

has produced before this Court letter dated 26th August, 2009 stating that

Mr. A. Amandeep Mathur's nomination was found to be invalid because he

had already contested DUSU elections in the year 2006. Photocopy of the

said letter dated 26th August, 2009 is being placed on record.

7. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any merit in the present writ

petition and the same is dismissed.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

      AUGUST 27, 2009
      VKR




W.P. (C) No. 11223/2009                                                 Page 4