SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1995 Supreme(Mad) 929

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.A. SWAMI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJU
RJagadeesan, Principal, Victory Tutorial College, Madurai.
Versus
M.D.K.Kuthalingam and Others
W.A.No.1150 of 1995 and C.M.P. No.14793 of 1995, W.P.No.4586 of 1995 and W.M.P.No.7586of 1995 and W.P.No.4827 of 1995 and W.M.P.No.7923 of 1995 respectively
Decided On : 15-11-1995

Advocates:
P.S.Raman, for Appellant in W.A. No. 1150 of 1995 and for Petitioner in C.M.P. No.14793 of 1995 and for Respondent Nos.3 and 4 in W.P. Nos.4586 and 4827 of 1995 and W.M.P. Nos.7589 and 7923 of 1995. R.Subramanian, for Petitioner in W.P. Nos.4586 of 1995 and W.M.P. No.7589 of 1995. Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, Senior Advocate, for M/ s.S.Silambanan and N.Saichandravadhan, for Petitioner in W.P. No.4827 of 1995 and W.M.P. No.7923 of 1995 and for Respondent No.1 in W.A. No. 1150 of 1995. Mohan Parasaran, for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in W.A. No.1150 of 1995 and C.M.P. No.14793 of 1995 for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in W.P. Nos.4586 and 4827 of 1995.

Member selected for Syndicate can continue to be member only during existence of membership in syndicate.

Headnote:Madurai Kamraj University Act, 1965 - Sections 15(c0, 19(a) and 19(c) - After being selected as member of syndicate by virtue of membership in Senate, can not continue as member of syndicate after expiry of the term and membership of Senate.

       

Judgment :-

K.A. Swami, C.J.

When the Writ Appeal No. 1150 of 1995 preferred against an interim order in W.M.P. No.7923 of 1995 came up before us for consideration, we considered it necessary to hear the writ petition itself. Subsequently it was brought to our notice thai W.P. No.4586 of 1995 also relates to the same subject-matter. Therefore, we directed to post the said writ petition along with the writ appeal. Hence, all the three matters are posted together. We have heard both sides. The decision in the writ petitions will have a bearing upon the writ appeal. Therefore, we take up the writ petitions for consideration.

2. In W.P. No.4586 of 1995, the petitioner has sought for issue of a writ of quo warranto, calling upon the respondents to show under what authority, the respondents 3 and 4 are holding the office of the member of Senate/ Syndicate in spite of the judgment of the Division Bench in W.P. Nos.5025 and 5026 of 1992, dated 12. 1994. In W.P. No.4827 of 1995, the petitioner has sought for issue of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents 3 and 4 to forbear from participating in the Senate and Syndicate meetings of the Madurai Kamaraj University in view of Secs. 15(b)(1) and 19(b) (i) of the Madurai University Act, 1965 as amended by the Tamil Nadu University Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 1991.

3. The facts necessary for the purpose of deciding the question as to whether R.Jagadeesan and P.T.R. Palanivel Rajan are entitled to continue as the members of the Syndicate are no longer in dispute and the same are as follows:

The Tamil Nadu University Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 1991 came into force on 22. 1992. On the date when the Act came into force, both the respondents referred to above had enjoyed the membership of the Senate for more than two terms. The validity of the Tamil Nadu University Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 1991 was challenged before this Court in W.P. Nos.5025 and 5026 of 1992. A Division Bench of this Court decided the said writ petitions, struck down certain provisions as unconstitutional and also issued certain directions. The relevant portions of the order is as follows:

“For the reasons stated above, the provisions of Sub-sec.(1) of Sec.5-A, Sub-clause (ii) of Clause (b) of Sec.14, Sub-clause (ii) of Clause (b) of Sec. 18, Sub-clause (ii) of Clause (b) of Sec.23 of 1923 Act as amended by Secs.2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively of 1992 Act and also the sub clause (ii) of Clause (b) of Sec.15, Sub-clause (ii) of Clause

(b) of Sec. 19, Sub-clause (ii) of Clause (b) of Sec.24 of 1965 Act as amended by Secs.8, 9 and 10 of 1992 Act and also Sec.24-A of 1965 Act as inserted by Sec.11 of 1992 Act are held as unconstitutional, being violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. The provisions contained in Explanations I and II and the provisos thereto of Sub-sec.(1) of Sec.5-A of 1923 Act as inserted by Sec.2 of 1992 Act and the Explanations I and II and the provisos to Sub-sec.(l) of Sec.24-A and Sub-sec.(2) of Sec.24-A of 1965 Act as inserted by Sec. 11 of 1992 Act are held to have become otiose, having regard to the fact that the Sub-sec.(l) thereto has been held to be unconstitutional. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. The petitioners and the respondents shall now work out the rights of the petitioners in the light of this decision. As far as the petitioner in W.P. No.4575 of 1993 is concerned, his nomination has been rejected on the basis of the impugned amendments, but, in the meanwhile, the election has taken place and the vacancy has been filled up. The member who has been elected, is not made a party before us. Therefore, it is not possible to grant any relief to him. However, it is open to him to work out his rights in the light of this decision.”

One of the provisions struck down relates to computation of the period of two terms whether it be Senate membership or Syndicate or Academic Council together without making any distinction and without treating each body as se






Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top