Kerala High Court

The Vice Chancellor vs Mohammad Rameesh K.P on 18 August, 2025

Author: Anil K.Narendran

Bench: Anil K.Narendran

                                   1




W.A No.2007 of 2025
                                                     2025:KER:62119

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                 PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

                                   &

              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.

     MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 27TH SRAVANA, 1947

                          WA NO. 2007 OF 2025

          AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 8.8.2025 IN WP(C) NO.29158 OF 2025

OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA


APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:

      1       THE VICE CHANCELLOR
              KERALA UNIVERSITY OF FISHERIES & OCEAN STUDIES,
              PANANGAD P.O., KOCHI, PIN - 682506

      2       THE RETURNING OFFICER/REGISTRAR
              KERALA UNIVERSITY OF FISHERIES & OCEAN STUDIES,
              PANANGAD P.O., KOCHI, PIN - 682506


              BY ADV SHRI.N.SATHEESH


RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

              MOHAMMAD RAMEESH K.P.
              AGED 26 YEARS
              S/O. ABDUL GAFOOR K.P., RESIDING AT THOLAKKAT PARAMBIL
              HOUSE, THRIKKANAPURAM P.O., THAVANOOR ROAD JUNCTION,
              MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679582


              SMT.NISHA GEORGE
       THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.08.2025,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
                                    2




W.A No.2007 of 2025
                                                     2025:KER:62119


                             JUDGMENT

Muralee Krishna, J.

The respondents in W.P.(C)No.29158 of 2025 filed this writ

appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958,

challenging the interim order dated 08.08.2025 passed by the

learned Single Judge directing them to provisionally accept the

nomination of the respondent/writ petitioner and to include him in

the list of eligible candidates provisionally and subject to further

orders.

2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the Kerala

University of Fisheries and Ocean Studies has issued Ext.P1

notification dated 18.07.2025, for election to the student

constituency. The scrutiny of the nomination was scheduled on

04.08.2025. There was no objection against the nomination of the

respondent. However, at the time of scrutiny, the 2 nd appellant

rejected the nomination of the respondent, citing that he has

academic arrears and therefore he is not eligible as per the

Lyngdoh Committee report. But, the proceedings are deliberately

not communicated to the respondent to non-suit him. Besides

2025:KER:62119

that, the Lyngdoh Committee report is applicable only in the case

of election to the University Union and not in the case of General

Council and such other authorities of the University. The said body

is an authority under the University Act. The nomination of the

respondent was accepted during the previous election, and the

nomination of the respondent is now deliberately rejected to

prevent him from contesting the election and to aid the student

organisation owing allegiance to the ruling party. Hence, the

respondent/petitioner filed the writ petition under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:

"a) Call for the records leading to the rejection of nomination of the petitioner and set aside the same;

b) issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2 nd respondent to accept the nomination of the petitioner and include him in the final list of candidates;

c) issue a writ declaring that the rejection of the nomination of the petitioner is totally arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable;

d) issue a writ declaring that the Lyngdoh Committee report will have no application in the case of election to the authorities of the University as defined under Section 9 of the University Act"

2025:KER:62119

3. On 08.08.2025, when the writ petition came up for

consideration before the learned Single Judge, the same was

admitted, and the interim relief as mentioned above was granted.

Being aggrieved, the appellants/respondents are now before this

Court with the instant writ appeal.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants/respondents

and the learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that

the nomination of the respondent was rejected on the basis of

Lyngdoh Committee recommendations, which were accepted by

the Apex Court in University of Kerala v. Council of

Principals', Colleges, Kerala and others [(2006) 8 SCC 304].

An overall reading of the Lyngdoh Committee recommendation

implies that it's terms apply to the election of student

representatives for constituting the University Governing Council

also. Allowing students to participate in the election, limiting the

recommendations of the Lyngdoh Committee only to student

union elections, would amount to a deterioration of the standard

of the Governing Council. The learned counsel would further

2025:KER:62119

submit that, as per the Kerala University of Fisheries and Ocean

Studies First Statutes, 2013 ('First Statutes 2013', in short), a

provision is provided to file an election petition before the Vice

Chancellor. Without exercising that right, the writ petitioner

approached this Court, and the interim order granted by the

learned Single Judge will unsettle the entire election process. By

relying on the judgment of this Court in Vinod and other v.

Returning Officer, G-28, Kainakari Grama Panchayath

[2021 (1) KHC 105] the learned counsel submitted that judicial

intervention is not contemplated against the election process at

the intermediate stage of election when a right is created by a

special statute to redress the grievance.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner

would submit that the Lyngdoh committee report is applicable only

to college union elections. It cannot be stretched to make it

applicable to the election conducted for the selection of a student

representative for constituting the University Governing Council.

7. By Ext.P1 notification dated 18.07.2025, the election for

2025:KER:62119

the selection of student representative for constituting the

Governing Council for the Kerala University of Fisheries and Ocean

Studies was notified. The last date for submission of nomination

was 2.00 p.m on 04.08.2025 and the scrutiny was scheduled at

3.30 p.m on the same day. The election is proposed to be held

on 19.08.2025 from 10.30 a.m. to 3.30 p.m. In pursuance of

that notification the respondent/writ petitioner submitted his

nomination. He alleges that at the time of scrutiny, the 2 nd

appellant Returning Officer/Registrar rejected the nomination

citing that he is not eligible in view of the Lyngdoh committee

recommendation as he has academic arrears. According to the

respondent/writ petitioner, the recommendation in the committee

report is applicable only to the student union election and not for

the election of student representative for constituting the

University Governing Council.

8. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for

the respondent/writ petitioner invited our attention to Statute 7

of Chapter XXI Part I of the First Statutes 2013 and submitted

that the students in the electoral roll are entitled to participate in

2025:KER:62119

the election and the 2nd appellant Returning Officer cannot reject

the nomination by applying the rules not mentioned in Ext.P4

notification dated 01.07.2024.

9. At the same time, the learned counsel for the appellants

invited our attention to Statute 13 of Chapter XXI Part I of the

First Statutes 2013 to point out that to redress the grievance of

the writ petitioner, a provision is provided therein to file an election

petition before the Vice Chancellor.

10. It is based on the Lyngdoh Committee recommendations,

the 2nd appellant rejected the nomination of the writ petitioner. In

University of Kerala [(2006) 8 SCC 304], the Apex Court,

accepted the recommendations of the Committee, which prevents

students having academic arrears in the year of contesting the

election from participating in the student union elections.

11. In Vinod [2021 (1) KHC 105] at paragraph 10, a

learned Single Judge of this Court held thus:

"10. In N. P. Ponnuswami v. The Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency, Namakkal, Salem District (1952 KHC 302 : AIR 1952 SC 64 : 1952 SCR 218 : 1 ELR 133), a Bench of the Apex Court consisting of 6 learned judges

2025:KER:62119

considered the scope of the expression "no election shall be called in question" contained in the identical provision in Art.329(b) of the Constitution dealing with election to the Parliament and State Legislatures, in the context of a challenge against the decision of the Returning Officer in rejecting the nomination of a candidate. It was held by the Apex Court in the said case that the scheme of the Constitution as also the scheme of the Representation of the People Act containing the pari materia provisions as in the Act providing for an election petition, do not contemplate two attacks on matters connected with election proceedings, one while they are going on by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Art.226 of the Constitution and the other after they have been completed, by means of the election petition and that the scheme of the constitutional and statutory provisions is that any matter which has the effect of vitiating an election should be brought up only at the appropriate stage in an appropriate manner before the special tribunal and should not be brought up at an intermediate stage before any Court. The Apex Court has held so, also having regard to the principle that where a right or liability is created by a statute which gives a special remedy for enforcing it, the remedy provided by that statute only must be availed of. The relevant passages of the judgment contained in paragraphs 9 and 12 read thus:

"9. The question now arises whether the law of elections in

2025:KER:62119

this country contemplates that there should be two attacks on matters connected with election proceedings, one while they are going on by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Art.226 of the Constitution (the ordinary jurisdiction of the Courts having been expressly excluded), and another after they have been completed by means of an election petition. In my opinion, to affirm such a position would be contrary to the scheme of Part XV of the Constitution and the Representation of the People Act, which, as I shall point out later, seems to be that any matter which has the effect of vitiating an election should be brought up only at the appropriate stage in an appropriate manner before a Special Tribunal and should not be brought up at an intermediate stage before any Court.."

xxxx xxxx xxxx "12. It is now well - recognized that where a right or liability is created by a statute which gives a special remedy for enforcing it, the remedy provided by that statute only must be availed of.."

It is seen that the aforesaid propositions have been laid down by the Apex Court having regard to the fact that in a country with a democratic constitution in which Legislatures have to play a very important role, it will lead to serious consequences, if the elections are unduly protracted or obstructed on account of judicial interference in the intermediate stage of the election. In other words, the view expressed in the said case is that howsoever erroneous or

2025:KER:62119

howsoever malicious the decision of the Returning Officer in rejecting the nomination be, judicial intervention is not contemplated against the same at the intermediate stage of the election". (Underline supplied)

12. Statute 13 of Chapter XXI Part I of the First Statutes 2013 reads thus:

"13. Election Disputes:- An election petition calling in question any election shall be made in writing. It shall be filed before the Vice Chancellor with a fee of Rs.100 remitted to the University Fund so as to reach him within seven days of the declaration of the results of the election. The Vice-Chancellor shall hear the petition within seven days."

13. While going through the recommendations of the

Lyngdoh Committee report and the judgment of the Apex Court in

University of Kerala [(2006) 8 SCC 304], we are of the

considered opinion that whether those recommendations can be

made applicable to all the elections to be held in the college,

including the election of student representative for constituting

University Governing Council or whether it can be made

applicable only to student union elections alone is a matter that

requires detailed consideration. At the same time, as noticed

2025:KER:62119

hereinabove, there is a provision provided under the First

Statutes 2013 to challenge the election, including rejection of

nomination. The respondent/writ petitioner has not made out any

exceptional circumstance that entitles him to approach this court

seeking the relief by exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226

of the Constitution of India, without exercising the statutory

remedy. When appreciating the facts of the instant case in the

light of the judgments referred to supra, conclusion is irresistible

that the interim order granted by the learned Single Judge

warrants interference, since it will, in effect granting of a final

relief, that also in a non-maintainable writ petition, which will

unsettle the entire election process.

Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and

the submissions made at the Bar, in the light of the discussions

made above, we allow this writ appeal by setting aside the

impugned order dated 08.08.2025 passed by the learned Single

Judge in W.P.(C)No.29158 of 2025. The contentions raised by the

parties regarding the applicability of the Lyngdoh Committee

recommendations to the election of student representative for

2025:KER:62119

constituting the University Governing Council is left open to be

decided in appropriate proceedings.

Sd/-

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/-
sks                            MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
 