Kerala High Court
Mohammed Faris. M vs The Returning Officer on 7 May, 2024
Author: T.R.Ravi
Bench: T.R.Ravi
W.P.(C). No.37236 of 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023/16TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 37236 OF 2023
PETITIONERS:
1 MOHAMMED FARIS. M
AGED 24 YEARS, S/O ABDUL SALAM,
MALIYEKKAL (H) VELLUR, VELLUR,
POOKKOTTUR, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676517
2 ASHIF SAHEER. M
AGED 20 YEARS, S/O MUHAMMED KUTTY
MOOZHIYAN (H) OORAKAM(PO)
MALAPPURAM DT., PIN - 676519
3 MOHAMMED RINSHAD P K
AGED 19 YEARS, S/O RASHEED PK
POOLAKKUNNAN (H) MONGAM (PO),
MORAYUR (VI), MALAPPURAM (DT),
PIN - 673642
4 MUHAMMED DILSHAD.NK
AGED 19 YEARS, S/O SAJAD NK
NADUVATH KALATHIL (H)
KOOTTILANGADI (PO) KADUPPURAM,
MALAPPURAM (DT)-, PIN - 676506
BY ADVS.
P.E.SAJAL
AJAS K.S.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE RETURNING OFFICER
PRIYADARSHINI ARTS AND SCIENCE COLLEGE PARAMMAL,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676519
2 THE PRINCIPAL
PRIYADARSHINI ARTS AND SCIENCE COLLEGE PARAMMAL,
MALAPPURAM-, PIN - 676519
3 DEAN OF STUDENT'S WELFARE
UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT,
W.P.(C). No.37236 of 2023
2
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 673635
4 THE VICE CHANCELLOR
UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT,
MALAPPURAM-, PIN - 673635
5 UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT
REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR,
UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT,
MALAPPURAM-, PIN - 673635
BY ADVS. M.KRISHNAKUMAR
P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 01.12.2023, THE COURT ON 7.5.2024
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C). No.37236 of 2023
3
T.R. RAVI, J.
---------------------------------------------
W.P.(C). No.37236 of 2023
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of May, 2024
JUDGMENT
The writ petition has been filed by the students of the 2nd
respondent college which is affiliated to the 5 th respondent
University. The 5th respondent decided to conduct the college
union election for the year 2023-2024 and the 3 rd respondent
issued a notification on 30.09.2023, a copy of which is
produced as Ext.P1. As per Ext.P1 the election was to be held
on 31.10.2023 which was postponed to 01.11.2023, owing to a
bus strike. Ext.P1 contemplated a parliamentary mode of
election. The first phase of the election was conducted on
01.11.2023. Ext.P2 is the list of class representatives elected
in the first phase. The valid list of candidates for the second
phase has been produced as Ext.P3. The writ petition was filed
when the second phase of the election was temporarily
suspended due to student unrest. Ext.P5 is the notice issued
by the 2nd respondent which says that further decisions
regarding the conduct of the election will be taken after due
consideration and in consultation with the Dean of Students
Welfare. The 3rd petitioner submitted Ext.P6 representation to
the 4th respondent requesting to conduct the second phase of
the election, publish the result of the college union election,
and protect the valuable rights of the students. The writ
petition has been filed praying for a direction to the 4th
respondent to pass appropriate orders on Exts.P5 and P6 and
for a direction to the 1st respondent to conduct the second
phase of the election on the basis of Exts.P2 and P3 and publish
the results.
2. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit
contending that there is no legal obligation for an affiliated
college to conduct an election and hence there is no right
available to the petitioners, that can be enforced through a
court of law. Reliance is placed on the judgment in Council of
Principals of Colleges V. State of Kerala [2004 (2) KLT
995], wherein it was held that directions issued through letters
to conduct an election following the presidential system of
election cannot be sustained and affiliated colleges are free to
follow a system which is better for the administration and
discipline in the colleges. The above judgment had been
challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble
Supreme Court had by an interim order provided guidelines
adopting the Lyngdoh Committee report as to how election
should be conducted. However, later the matter was referred
to a Larger Bench by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, entertaining
doubt as to whether the directions issued in the interim order
would amount to judicial legislation. The matter was taken up
before a Larger Bench and it was closed without pronouncing
on the merits of the issue. The 2 nd respondent points out that
subsequently this Court had in the judgment in the Principal,
Elijah Institute of Management Studies, Thrissur V.
University of Calicut and Others (2016 (4) KLT 474),
considered the entire decisions and held that the bye-law
framed by the University for the purpose of conduct of election
is not a bye-law framed in terms of the power vested in the
Syndicate under Section 40(1) of the Calicut University Act and
it can only be treated as a guideline for the affiliated colleges.
It is hence contended by the 2 nd respondent that there cannot
be a compulsion on the affiliated colleges to conduct an
election.
3. I have considered the contentions of the petitioners
and the respondents. This Court has in Elijah Institute
(supra) categorically held that the power under Section 40(1)
is to make rules, bye-laws, and orders for the guidance and
working of "boards and committees of other bodies constituted
under the provisions of the Act or the Statutes or the Ordnance
or the Regulations" and for regulating the procedure and
conduct of business at meetings of any authority of the
University other than the Senate. This Court held that the bye-
law framed to conduct of election cannot be treated as a bye-
law which is framed under Section 40(1) of the Act. This Court
further held that the powers and duties of the Syndicate,
though available to manage and control colleges or affiliated
institutes by the University, there is no power vested to
interfere with college union elections of an affiliated college.
The learned Judge held that the judgment in Council of
Principals of Colleges still holds the field and as held by the
Division Bench, the bye-laws are not binding on the affiliated
colleges.
4. I do not find any reason to take a different view.
The prayer in the writ petition to direct conduct of the election
for the second phase in accordance with Exts.P2 and P3 cannot
hence be granted since there is no legal obligation on the 2 nd
respondent. The further prayer in the writ petition is for a
direction to the 4th respondent to consider Exts.P5 and P6
representations. Since this Court has already held that the
bye-laws framed by the University are not binding on the
affiliated colleges and the affiliated colleges are free to adopt
their own methods for election, no directions can be issued by
the 4th respondent in that regard.
In the above circumstances, the writ petition fails and is
dismissed.
Sd/-
T.R. RAVI
JUDGE
Pn
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 37236/2023
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 30.09.2023
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF FIRST PHASE
ELECTED CLASS REPRESENTATIVES
(CANDIDATES) FOR THE SECOND PHASE
ELECTION DATED 01.11.2023
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE VALID LIST OF
CANDIDATES DATED NIL ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTORAL ROLL
PUBLISHED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE
SECOND PHASE ELECTION DATED 01.11.2023
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT DATED 01.11.2023
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
06.11.2023 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 4TH
RESPONDENT
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS
Exhibit R2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE REVISED BY LAW DATED
29-06 2012 OF THE COLLEGE STUDENTS
UNION ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALICUT.
