Kerala High Court

Muhammed Asif M.A vs University Of Kerala on 23 June, 2022

           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

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

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

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

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,

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,

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.

W.P.(C)No. 20069 of 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

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