Shahrukh Khan vs Vice Chancellor, Mahatma Gandhi University, Mahatma Gandhi University, Principal Siena College of Professional Studies and Students Federation of India

K. Vinod Chandran, J.—The petitioner is a student of the 3rd respondent College, who is aggrieved by the non conduct of elections to the college union. Petitioner contends that schedule of elections to the college union, of all affiliated colleges of the 2nd respondent University, was drawn up by the Registrar as per Ext.P1. It is the contention of the petitioner that despite the decision of the college to conduct the election in the parliamentary mode and despite the names of the class representatives having been taken as per Ext.P5 list, no election notification was made. In such circumstances, the students are deprived of having a college union and being represented in the University, is his contention.

The 3rd respondent college has filed a counter affidavit contending that a Returning Officer was appointed as per Ext.R3(a) and that the Returning Officer so appointed, has notified the schedule of election as per Ext.R3(b). However, despite the notification being issued, no student submitted their nomination for class representatives. Hence, the Returning Officer intimated the said fact to the Principal. It was in such circumstances the Principal contends, that no elections were conducted to the college union. It is also specifically averred by the Principal that, since the academic year is coming to a close and various extra curricular activities are to be conducted, a list of students have been prepared and the petitioner is included in the list from the 3rd year B.C.A Graduate course, as the class representative.

It has to be noticed that despite the willingness of the college authorities to conduct the college union election, no purpose would be served since the 2nd respondent University contends that the University Union Councillors can be allowed to be represented in the University Union only if elections as per the schedule has been conducted. The practice according to the University, is to form the University Union in the next academic year out of the nominees elected from all the colleges and then to elect the office bearers of the University Union from the so nominated and elected candidates from the college unions. It is in such circumstances, that the University has not granted any permission to conduct elections outside the schedule since that would create further problems insofar as objections being raised from various quarters. The learned Standing Counsel for the University also submits that it would lead to a precedent wherein various colleges would be conducting elections at different times; thus making it difficult for the University co-ordinate the same and carry on the system, in a functional manner.

In the circumstances noticed above, this Court is of the opinion that no direction could be issued to the college, at this point of time, to conduct an election. Especially since the Principal of the college swears on affidavit that despite a notification having been published, none of the students came forward with nominations.. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed, leaving the parties to suffer their costs.