A person aggrieved by the decision of a subordinate body or officer of an autonomous university should first avail himself of the remedy provided by the university's own statutes or rules before approaching the court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

1. This is a petition by a registered graduate of the Nagpur University for the issue of a writ of mandamus to the University of Nagpur under Article 226 of the Constitution Quashing the order of the Registrar of the University dated the 21st of November 1956 rejecting the petitioners nomination paper, of a writ against the respondents directing them to receive the said nomination paper as having been validly delivered to the respondent No. 2, the Registrar, and a writ ordering them to hold fresh elections. He has also applied for an interim order restraining the respondents from announcing the results of the elections to the University Court which have in the meanwhile been held.

2. It is common ground that the petitioner was duly proposed and seconded as a candidate for election to the University Court by the registered graduates of the Nagpur University. It is also common ground that the nomination paper was sent by registered post by the proposer to the Registrar of the University and it was received by him within the time fixed for receiving the nominations. Again, it is common ground that the envelope containing the nomination paper though properly dosed did not bear any seal with a sealing wax.

3. On the date of scrutiny of the nomination papers an objection wag raised by some of the candidates to the effect that some envelopes containing nomination papers were not received in sealed covers, i.e., in covers on which seals with wax were affixed. After considering this objection the Registrar upheld it and rejected six nomination papers. The petitioner alone from among these six graduates has come up to this Court asking for the reliefs which we have already set out above.

4. Shri Adhikari who appears for the Petitioner has raised the following points : In the first place, according to him, what the rule requires is merely the sealing, that is, the closing of the cover in which the nomination form is sent, and that there is no requirement in the rule for putting a seal with a sealing wax. His second contention is that the provision made, in this regard is merely directory and that non-compliance with this provision would not Justify the rejection of a nomination paper. The third point taken by him is that it is the Registrar who alone is entitled to reject a nomination paper, that is to say, acting suo motu and that it is not open to any candidates to object to the reception or acceptance of such a nomination paper at the time of the scrutiny of the nomination papers. According to him, the candidates can only object to any defect in the nomination paper itself and not to a defect in the sealed cover.

5. During the course of arguments Shri. Adhikari also urged that even the Registrar must confine himself to the defects in the nomination papers and has no power to consider whether the envelope in which a nomination paper was sent was properly sealed or not.

6. On behalf of the University Shri Wan-khede urged that the University, which is an, autonomous body, has framed its own statutes and rules for the purpose of carrying out its duties under the Act, that in the rules framed by it it has specifically provided that certain things should be done in certain ways; as for instance, the nomination papers should be sent in sealed envelopes, that this provision is mandatory and that non-compliance with this provision would necessarily have the effect given to It by the Registrar. Further according to him, sealing does not mean merely closing an envelope but that there should be a seal with a sealing wax on the flap of the envelope. He also urged that the Registrar in rejecting the nomination paper exercised a discretion committed to him by Rule 4 (iv) of Statute No. 18 and that it is not open to this Court to interfere with the exercise of that discretion by the Registrar.

7. Two other points have also been taken by Shri Wankhede; one is that though the scrutiny of the nomination papers took place on the 21st and the pe