The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of democratic governance and accountability through periodic elections, as emphasized by the provisions of the Punjab University Act and Regulations.

JUDGMENT :

FATEH DEEP SINGH, J.

“Power will intoxicate the best hearts, as wine the strongest heads. No man is wise enough, nor good enough, to be trusted with unlimited power.”

Colton

1. Little did the enactors of the Punjab University Act, 1947 (in short ‘the Act’) would have realized that what they have framed as a comprehensive and exhaustive legislation would come to be a tool in the hands of its own academic officer pursuing not the educational goals but satisfying his own personal ends and thereby in the process virtually oust its own governing body looking after the management and superintendence of this August institution once of International fame and oldest in this country. Such is the unbridled exercise of powers that even the power of Government under Section 33 of the Act could not deter him or had any sobering effect, and what to the nullifying effect of special meetings provided under Section 11(2) and 31(2)(c) of the Act empowering the requisite members of Senate to requisition a meeting. It is thus what has led the present petitioners who happen to be the Senators of respondent No. 1 University in knocking at the doors of this Court by way of instant Writ Petition having been rendered powerless, in spite of the fact that the Senate is the Supreme authority of the University and managing its affairs in terms of Section 8 read with Section 11 of the Act as well as its powers of making regulations in conformity with Section 31 of the Act. Respondent No. 2 being the Vice-Chancellor of respondent No. 1 to usurp these powers of Senate appears to have chosen a way out and in this Scheme has managed to pass orders (Annexure P10) thereby putting off the Senate Elections 2020 indefinitely which was supposed to be held with effect from August 2020 as term of the 91-member Senate was to expire in October 2020. The allegations are to the effect that it was under influence of politically backed group that this manipulation has come about, when the election process has already begun and the deferment by Respondent No. 2 was illegal and highly uncalled for, in exercise of powers under Regulation 12.2, Chapter II B of Punjab University Calendar Vol. I, by way of Orders Annexure P-16, P-19 and P-20. The petitioners have termed the advice by UT Administration and Standing Counsel to be biased for a motivated cause, and thus have questioned the powers of respondent No. 2 to defer the Elections indefinitely without approval of the Syndicate/Senate as falling outside the powers of respondent No. 2.

2. The resultant stand of the respondents in their respective responses is of total denial, the Senate term having expired and thus the locus-standi of the petitioners to challenge the same. Support is taken from the stand of various bodies of the University and the present COVID-19 pandemic being responsible for this deferment and so reluctance of the Administration in facilitating these elections which was spread over a number of constituencies in surrounding States with a large number of voters.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and had the opportunity to go through the records in detail.

4. Mr. R.S. Cheema, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. R. Kartikeya, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners had led a scathing attack upon the connivance of respondents with each other and their illegal conduct in scuttling due process of elections which had already been set into motion and appraisal of the Punjab Reorganization Act, 1966 as well as the Punjab University Act, 1947 was made. Learned counsel had stressed on the fact that it was respondent No. 2 who had initiated the electoral process and subsequent thereto had postponed and upon political interference had deferred the same indefinitely. It was urged that it was nothing but a device intended by respondent No. 2 to usurp the powers of the sacrosanct democratically elected body of the University harboring on the claim that under the Act and the Regulations, the University cannot la