Raghunath Dwivedi vs The Vice-Chancellor, University of Allahabad and others

Heard the present writ petition along with Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6238 of 1995 (Krishna Murthy Yadav and others v. University of Allahabad and others).

The present writ petition was filed challenging the election result for the post of Vice-President of Students'' Union of the University of Allahabad declared on 1-3-1995 in favour of the respondent No. 5 and for consequential reliefs.

The writ petition was moved contending inter alia that the petitioner, a student of Allahabad University contested the election of students Union of the University scheduled on 25-2-1995 filing his nomination for the post of Vice-President. Election held on the date scheduled was followed by repolling of four polling stations on 26-2-1995 and upon counting of votes the Returning Officer declared the petitioner as elected having secured 17 votes more than his nearest rival candidate Mr. Utpal Rai, the respondent No. 5. The petitioner was administered oath on 27-2-1995 and the result of such election was published in various newspapers.

The petitioner further contended in the writ petition that he came to know subsequently that without any notice to him earlier declaration of result of the election of petitioner was cancelled, recounting was conducted on 28-2-1995, the respondent No. 5 was declared elected Vice-President and oath was administered to him in the morning of 1-3-1995 at 6 a.m. challenging the same the present writ petition was filed.

The respondents challenged the maintainability of the writ petition and Mr. R.C. Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 5 and Mr. Ashok Bhushan, learned counsel appearing for respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3, the University authorities, advanced arguments.

Preliminary objection on maintainability of the writ petition was on three grounds. The first objection was that the Students'' Union is not a statutory body and election of its office-bearers being its internal matter no writ petition is maintainable challenging such election. The second objection of the respondents was that there is an effective alternative remedy of filing an election petition under Clause 72 of the Constitution of Allahabad. University Union before the Judicial Committee and as such the writ petition should not be entertained. The third objection was that the order of Vice-Chancellor was being challenged and the remedy is provided u/s 68 of the U. P. State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ''said Act'').

In support of the first objection reference was made to Sections 51 and 52 of the said Act and the Ordinance contained in Chapter 56 of the University of Allahabad Calendar for the year 1987-88. The law as laid down in various cases were also referred to including the cases of Keshavdeo Tripathi v. Vice-Chancellor, University of Allahabad, reported in 1985 UPLBEC 649, Sanjay Jain v. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in AIR 1988 MP 90, Anand Vardhan Cnandel v. University of Delhi, reported in , Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College v. Lakshmi Narain, reported in AIR 1976 SC 888 , Aley Ahmad Abidi Vs. Dist. Inspector of Schools, Allahabad and Others, , Yogendra Nath Trivedi v. State of U. P., reported in 1987 UPLBEC 44 ,:,(19S7 ALJ 308 ) and Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. and Others Vs. Additional Industrial Tribunal and Others, .

Mr. K. N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner supported the writ petition and denied the objection regarding its maintainability, In support of his arguments, the learned counsel referred to the provisions of Section 7 of the said Act and particularly sub-sections (2), (14), (15) and (17) thereof. The said ordinances in Chapter 56 were also relied upon. The provisions of Sections 9, 13, 51 and 52 of the said Act were also referred to for contending that the Constitution of the Allahabad University Students'' Union is a statutory one and that the said Students'' Union is a statutory body and as such the writ petition is maintainable on the subject-matter of the present writ petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to the case of Keshav Deo Tripathi (1985 UPLBEC 649 ) (supra), Unni Krishnan, J.P. and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others etc. etc., and the case of the The D.F.O., South Kheri and Others Vs. Ram Sanehi Singh, .

The learned counsel for the parties also referred to various other cases in support of their respective contentions.

Upon giving anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties both in support of and against the maintainability of the writ petition on the question as to whether the Allahabad University Students'' Union is a statutory body and election of its office-bearers being its internal matter the writ petition is maintainable or not, I find as follows:

The definition clauses in Section 2 of the said Act do not indicate anything that the Students'' Union is a part of the University. The powers and duties of the University have been contained in Section 7 of the said Act. The sub-sections of the said Section 7 which may be relevant in any manner are as follows:

"7. Powers and duties of the University --The University shall have the following powers and duties, namely-

(1) ..... .... .... (2) to admit any college to the privileges of affiliation or recognition or to enlarge the privileges of any college already affiliated or recognised, as the case may be, or to withdraw or curtail any such privilege and to guide and control the work of affiliated and associated colleges;

.... .... .... .... .... .... (14) to demand and receive such fees and other charges as may be fixed by the ordinances;

(15) to supervise and control the residence and to regulate the discipline of students of the University, the Institute and the constituent or affiliated or associated colleges and to make arrangements for promoting their health;

.... .... ... (17) to do all such acts and things, whether incidental to the powers aforesaid or not, as may be requisite in order to further the objects of the University."

Section 9 of the said Act indicates the officers of the University and the same does not help in any manner in the matter of deciding the present question. The position, powers and duties of the Vice-Chancellor have been provided in Sections 12 and 13 of the said Act and no part of the said sections indicate in any manner the relation of the Students'' Union and the Vice-Chancellor.

Section 19 of the said Act defines authorities of the University and the same runs as follows:

"19. Authorities of the University -- The following shall be the authorities of the University-

(a) the Executive Council;

(b) the Court;

(c) the Academic Council;

(d) the Finance Committee;

(e) the Boards of Faculties;

(f) the Selection Committees for appointment of teachers of the University;

(g) the Admissions Committee;

(h) the Examinations Committee; and

(i) such other authorities as may be declared by the Statutes to be authorities of the University."

Nothing has been referred to show that the Statutes declared the Judicial Committee of the Students'' Union is an authority under sub-section (i) of Section 19.

Section 21 of the said Act provides for powers and duties of the Executive Council and the same has not dealt with any function of the Executive Council relating to the Students Union. Sections 45 to 48 of the said Act deal with admissions and examinations of the students and I find no reference appearing as regards the Students'' Union.

Section 51 of the said Act provides for Ordinances. The matters which were referred, as may be provided for by Ordinances do not include any activity of the Students'' Union, Sub-clauses (a), (b), (c), (g), (j) and (o) of sub-section (2) of Section 51 were specially noticed as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner. But, I do not find any material therein which may cover the matters relating to Students'' Union.

The Ordinances as referred to repeatedly by the parties in Chapter LVI run as follows:

"Ordinances -- There shall be a Union of all regular students of the University which shall be known as "Allahabad University Union."

The objects of the Union shall be:

(a) to foster and inculcate among the members patriotism, broad mindedness, fellow feeling and spirit of discipline;

(b) to hold debates and arrange symposiums and lecturers;

(c) to promote corporate, social and cultural activities in general.

The Executive Council shall lay down the fundamentals of the Constitution of the Allahabad University Union, which is an integral part of the University, by Rules, in consultation with the representatives of the Union and amend them in a similar manner when necessary.

Subject to the aforesaid Rules, the Union shall have the power to frame its own Constitution and to lay down other rules and regulations governing the activities.

Each regular student of the University shall pay a fee of Rs. 2 per annum to the University."

Reference was repeatedly made to the new Constitution of the Allahabad University Union both in support of and against maintainability of the writ petition. Particular reference was made to the preamble, clauses 37 to 43, 66 to 72 and 118 of the said Constitution.

Upon looking into the said provision is and considering the arguments advanced by the respective parties, I do not find any material to show that the said Student Union of the Allahabad University is a statutory body. The Act itself and the particular relevant provisions thereof as indicated hereinabove do not show that the Students'' Union is any part of the University or the Students'' Union performs on delegation any activity of the University. Merely some role of the Executive Council or the Vice-Chancellor by reason of provisions of the said new Constitution of the Allahabad University Union do not make the Students'' Union a part of the University nor brings the Students'' Union on the level of statutory body.

The Students'' Union has been pro vided in the Ordinance in Chapter LVI as aforesaid. But neither Section 32 of the Allahabad University Act (the old Act) nor Section 51 of the U. P. State Universities Act provide for framing any ordinance relating to Students'' Union. So the said Constitution of the Students'' Union even if comes into effect by virtue of the said Ordinances, the said constitution cannot be held to have any statutory force. The said Students'' Union of Allahabad University also is not a statutory body.

The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners relating to constitutional right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, in my opinion, do not help in holding that forming Students'' Union or election of its office-bearers are fundamental rights, I do not accept that functions of Students'' Union amount to imparting of education and as such are covered by Article 21. The materials available on records of the writ petition or in any of the affidavits filed therein do not indicate that the Students'' Union is a part of the University or is a statutory body. In this connection, it may be stated that some affidavits were filed in course of hearing. But the materials stated in a supplementary rejoinder-affidavit filed on 30-3-1995 after substantial part of the hearing was over and there was no opportunity for the respondents to deal with the same, were not relied upon by the petitioner in course of hearing.

Question involved herein is not on right to form association and no such right is in jeopardy. No freedom of speech or expression is affected by impugned acts. Further, the impugned acts and/or omissions did not relate to any public duty.

Law as decided in various cases relating to the above subject has been relied upon by the respective parties including the cases referred to hereinabove. The position in law is clear that when the Students'' Union is not a statutory body and election of its office bearers is its internal matter, no writ petition is maintainable challenging the election of the respondent No. 5. The prayers in the original writ petition exclusively relate to election of the respondent No. 5. The prayer introduced by the amendment challenged recommendation of the Judicial Committee and an order of the Vice-Chancellor/Patron.

The Judicial Committee is a committee provided for in the new Constitution of the Allahabad University Union. The said Judicial Committee is not an authority of the University itself as would appear from perusal of Section 19 of the said Act. The Vice-Chancellor acting as Patron by virtue of his powers under paragraph 118 of the Constitution of the Students'' Union also is not to act as the Vice-Chancellor exercising powers and duties as provided in Section 13 of the said Act.

Thus, in my opinion, none of the matters under challenge can be challenged in a writ petition and as such the writ petition is not maintainable.

The second objection as to maintainability is on the ground of availability of alternative remedy under paragraph 72 of the Constitution of Students'' Union. I have considered the contentions of the respective parties and the provisions of law as referred to in the cases of N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Nawakhal, reported in AIR 1952 SC 64 and S.T. Muthuswami v. K. Natarajan, reported in AIR 1988 SC 616. I am of the view that even if the said objection is upheld in respect of the prayers made in original writ petition, the decision by the Judicial Committee as challenged on amendment was under the said paragraph 72 and as such the same could not be again challenged under paragraph 72 and there is no alternative remedy available in the said Constitution itself. I do not find that para 118 of the said Constitution of the Students'' Union can grant relief against any grievance relating to an order under paragraph 72.

Thus, the order of the Judicial Committee itself could not be challenged under paragraph 72 and as such the same is not an alternative remedy but the Judicial Commit-tee''s order being not amenable to writ jurisdiction as has been held hereinabove, the writ petition does not He.

With regard to third objections as to maintainability on the ground of alternative remedy u/s 68 of the said Act, I am of the opinion that challenge to the election and the decision of the Judicial Committee could not be made u/s 68. Even the order of the Vice-Chancellor was in his capacity as Patron and was not an exercise of power u/s 13 of the said Act and the scope of Section 68 does not permit challenge of the said order of the Patron u/s 68.

In view of the aforesaid findings, the writ petition is not maintainable and the same is accordingly dismissed. But, I make it clear that I have not decided any of the questions raised in the writ petition on merit.

There will be no order as to costs.

Petition dismissed.