Back
2016 Supreme(Del) 251
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
Sunita Arora - Petitioner
Versus
Delhi University & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 198/2016 & CM No.813/2016
Decided on : 15.01.2016
Advocate Appeared:
Ms. Roma Bhagat, Mr. Pankaj Sinha, Ms. Nupur Grover
Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal & Ms. Simran Jeet, for University of Delhi
Only a candidate wrongfully denied participation or whose result is claimed to be vitiated has cause of action to challenge an election. A person must be an aggrieved person to invoke certiorari jurisdiction, and members of a society have no right to agitate the result of elections.
Headnote:
Election Interference - University Elections - S.D. Siddiqui Vs. University of Delhi 2006(3) AD (Delhi) 290, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University Vs. Smit Rajput, Bhushan Ramlal Kahsyap Vs. S.D.O., Thammanna Vs. K. Veera Reddy, Dr. P.P. Rastogi Vs. Meerut University, Committee of Management, Sri Kachcha Baba Inter College Vs. Regional Committee Pancham Mandal - The court dismissed the petition challenging the election of the Executive Committee of DUWA, citing lack of cause of action for the petitioner and emphasizing that only a candidate wrongfully denied participation or whose result is claimed to be vitiated has cause of action to challenge the election. The court also highlighted the principle that a person must be an aggrieved person to invoke certiorari jurisdiction and that members of a society have no right to agitate the result of elections.
Fact of the Case:
The petition challenged the election of the Executive Committee of DUWA and sought mandamus to hold de novo election, as well as relief to restrain the University from interfering with the elections. The petitioner was not a candidate in the election.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition, stating that the petitioner lacked cause of action to challenge the election and emphasizing that only a wrongfully denied candidate or a candidate whose result is claimed to be vitiated has cause of action to challenge the election.
Issues: The main issue was the maintainability of the petition and the petitioner's cause of action to challenge the election.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that only a candidate wrongfully denied participation or whose result is claimed to be vitiated has cause of action to challenge the election. It also emphasized the principle that a person must be an aggrieved person to invoke certiorari jurisdiction and that members of a society have no right to agitate the result of elections.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed with liberty for the petitioner to avail of the suit remedy with respect to the affairs of the respondent no.2 DUWA. No costs were awarded.
1. The petition impugns (a) the Minutes of the General Body Meeting (GBM) dated 28th November, 2015 of the respondent no.2 (DUWA) containing the decision to hold the election to the Executive Committee of the respondent no.2 DUWA; as well as, (b) the Notification dated 2nd January, 2016 of the Returning Officer appointed in the aforesaid GBM for holding the elections, announcing the result of the election. Axiomatically, mandamus is also sought to the respondent no.2 to DUWA to hold de novo election.
2. It is also inter alia the pleading of the petitioner that the respondent no.1 Delhi University has interfered with the affairs of the respondent no.2 DUWA and axiomatically relief of restraining the respondent no. 1 University from interfering with the elections of DUWA is also claimed.
3. Though the petition came up first before this Court on 8th January, 2016 and thereafter on 11th January, 2016 but was adjourned and notice has not been issued as yet. The order dated 11th January, 2016 records the contention of the senior counsel for the respondent no.1 University appearing on advance notice that the writ petition is not maintainable in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in S.D. Siddiqui Vs. University of Delhi 2006(3) AD (Delhi) 290 that Delhi University Teachers Association (DUTA) is not a State or an instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and does not perform any public function and is a purely private body working for the welfare of teachers of the university and affiliated colleges and hence no writ lies against DUTA.
4. The senior counsel for the respondent no.1 University today also contends that the respondent no.2 DUWA is identically placed as DUTA and thus what has been held qua DUTA would equally apply to the respondent no.2 DUWA.
5. The counsel for the petitioner on the aspect of maintainability of the writ petition contends that the judgment aforesaid is a judgment only on the aspect of DUTA being not a State. It is contended that in the present proceeding it is the case of the petitioner that the respondent no.1 University has unreasonably, arbitrarily and unauthorizedly interfered with the process of election of DUTA and thus a writ petition is maintainable. It is argued that the Returning Officer of the election was appointed by the Vice Chancellor (VC) of the respondent no.1 University and which the VC was not authorized to do and the same has vitiated the entire election process. It is even otherwise contended that since the elections have been held wrongly and in an arbitrary manner, the petition would be maintainable.
6. I have enquired from the counsel for the petitioner whether the petitioner was a candidate in the said election.
7. The answer is in the negative.
8. The senior counsel for the respondent no.1 University states that the petitioner could not have been a candidate having been a member of the Executive Committee of the respondent no.2 DUWA for the past two consecutive terms.
9. The counsel for the petitioner controverts that the petitioner was the member of the Executive Committee of the respondent no.2 DUWA for two consecutive terms. It is stated that the petitioner was a member of the Executive Committee for one term only and though was eligible to contest the election to the Executive Committee this year also but chose not to.
10. I have in the circumstances enquired from the counsel for the petitioner as to what is the cause of action of the petitioner to maintain this petition, even if the same was to be maintainable.
11. The counsel for the petitioner states that this is not a suit, for the petitioner to have a cause of action.
12. I am afraid that is not the position in law. It would be preposterous to say that a writ petition can be filed without a cause of action. In fact, the Division Bench of this Court in Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University Vs. Smit Rajput while relying on the judgment of Supreme Court in Shipping Co
