ORDER :

ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, J.

1. By way of this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, the appellant i.e. Sardar Patel University is challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 06.09.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 7770 of 2021.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent – institution addressed a letter on 30.03.2021 to the appellant – University, inter alia informing that respondent – institution has nominated its two representatives namely one Shri Manish S. Patel - Vice President and Shri Mehulbhai Dineshchandra Patel - for being members of the Syndicate of the appellant – University. While responding to the said communication of the respondent – institution, the appellant – University vide its reply dated 19.04.2021 informed to conduct election of the representatives as required by Clause (f) of subsection (1) of Section 22 of the Sardar Patel University Act, 1955 (for short the “Act”). According to the appellant – University, this communication followed by subsequent communication dated 25.04.2021, reflecting on page 102 has given rise to the filing of the petition by the respondent – institution. According to the appellant though the petition was not maintainable in view of the statutory remedy being available under Section 59 of the Act, the learned Single Judge by the impugned order dated 06.09.2021 was pleased to allow the petition by quashing and setting the impugned communications as referred to above and it is against this order passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal.

3. Shri Kamal Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sudhanshu A. Jha, learned advocate appearing for the appellant - University has, at the outset fairly conceded that the view adopted by the learned Single Judge insofar as its communication dated 19.04.2021, is not possible to be assailed in view of the fact that though provisions required by virtue of Section 22(1) Clause (f), two representatives elected by the Charutar Vidhya Mandal, but the approved Regulations and Rules of Charutar Vidhya Mandal which are in existence right from inception, instead of electing two representatives, nomination can be made by the respondent - institution by virtue of Clause (l) of Regulation 5, as is reflecting on page 82A and that being so, he has fairly stated before the Court that the impugned communication to the effect that the election to Syndicate to be conducted by the University is not possible to be agitated and qua that the order under challenge is not assailable.

3.1. However, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Trivedi has pointed out from Chapter IV of the Sardar Patel University Act, 1995 which deals with Authorities of University and has submitted relevant clause which relates to the expression, ‘ the Syndicate’. By referring to Clause 15 sub-clause (D) has contended that Syndicate should consists of : The President, the Chairman, and The Secretary of the Charutar Vidya Mandal and as such, out of all these three, two representatives can be nominated by the respondent - institute and no person dehors this capacity which has been mentioned in the aforesaid provisions. To substantiate his contention, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Trivedi has pointed out from communication dated 30.03.2021 wherein it had mentioned that the names which are nominated as the representative on the Syndicate of the University for a period of three years commencing from 01.04.20121 are (1)Mr. Manish Patel –Vice President; (2) Mr. Mehulkumar Dineshchandra Patel – Sanket Sales are outside the scope of the names which are stipulated in Clause 15(D) and as such, there is a serious reservation so far as these two representatives who are nominated.

3.2. It has been further contended by the learned Senior Advocate with emphasis that these two representatives are neither President nor Chairman nor Secretary of the Charutar Vidya Mandal and as such, dehors t