important point
In absence of challenge to the constitutional validity of statutory provision, the Court is called upon only to interpret the provision as it stands treating it to be valid and intra vires.

judgment

C.K. Thakker, J. —

1.Leave granted.

2.The present appeal is filed against final judgment and order dated August 8, 2005 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 1513 of 2005. By the impugned order, the High Court dismissed the petition on the ground that the writ petitioner could not be said to be ‘aggrieved party’. In view of the said finding, the High Court did not consider it appropriate to express any opinion on the question raised in the petition.

3.Shortly stated the facts of the case are that the first respondent is University of Mumbai. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are Vice Chancellor and Registrar respectively of respondent No.1, whereas Respondent No. 4 is the State of Maharashtra. The University is governed by the provisions of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

4.On August 2, 1999, the respondent University issued a notification calling for applications from registered graduates in the prescribed form for getting their names registered in the electoral roll for electing ten members in the Senate of the University. The writ-petitioner who holds LL.M. degree of the University applied for registering his name in the said roll. The respondent-University, however, addressed a letter to the writ petitioner, calling upon him to submit his Bachelor Degree Certificate to ascertain whether he had obtained Graduate Degree from the said University. According to the writ petitioner, if a person has obtained Master Degree or Doctoral Degree from the University, his name also should be included in the electoral roll and he cannot be denied registration only on the ground that he had not obtained Graduate Degree from the University. The writ petitioner, in the circumstances, approached the High Court by filing Writ Petition No. 436 of 2000 challenging the interpretation placed by the respondent-University on the term ‘Graduate’. The High Court found prima facie substance in argument of the writ petitioner and admitted the petition by issuing Rule nisi. But, by the time the writ petition came up for final hearing, elections were over and the High Court did not think it fit to express any opinion on the question of law raised by the writ petitioner and disposed it of observing that the petition had become ‘infructuous’. The question of law, however, was kept open.

5.Once again when the elections were scheduled to be held, the question of interpretation of the word ‘Graduate’ came up for consideration. The writ-petitioner addressed a letter to the University on October 25, 2004 to re-consider the legal issue. The respondent-University, however, disregarded the writ petitioner’s request and issued a notification on April 22, 2005 for election of Senate. It insisted to register names of those persons who had obtained Graduate Degree from the University. The writ petitioner, therefore, was constrained to approach the High Court again by filing the present petition, i.e. Writ Petition 1513 of 2005. Notice was issued by the Court and the respondents appeared. An affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it was contended that the writ petitioner could not be said to be ‘aggrieved party’ in view of the fact that he was graduated from Bombay University and his name could be registered in the electoral roll. No other person had made any grievance who was graduated from other University and obtained Master Degree or Doctoral Degree from Bombay University and was denied enrolment of his name in the electoral roll. The petition filed by the writ petitioner, therefore, was not maintainable.

6.The High Court in the impugned order observed that the writ-petitioner himself was a graduate who obtained B.A. Degree from the respondent-University. He could not, therefore, have any grievance in the matter. The contention of the writ petitioner was that the respondent-University was wrongly interpreting the word ‘Graduate’ in a restricted manner and several other persons