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

1991 Supreme(MP) 28

S.K.JHA, K.M.AGARWAL
Surendra Sohane – Appellant
Versus
Hari Singh Gour Vishwavidyalaya – Respondent


Advocates:
Rajendra Tiwari for petitioners; N.C. Jain for respondents.

ORDER

1. The three petitioners, amongst others, were elected under the provisions of Group C of section 20(1) of the M.P. Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), on 14.4.88 which is borne out by Annexure P.4 to the petition. Some more persons were declared duly elected under the provisions of clause (xix) of section 20(1) of the Act read with statute No. 23 framed thereunder for Dr. Harisingh Gour Vishwavidyalaya, Sagar. Some other members were declared elected under Group B of section 20(1) of the Act read with statute No. 25. This is borne out by Annexure P.5.

2. It is better to state at the outset that the facts in this case are not in controversy. It is only the question of interpretation of certain statutory provisions which is involved in this petition.

3. Section 20(1) begins to read as follows:

"The Court shall consist of the following persons, namely...."

It is not necessary to reproduce all the remaining provisions of sub-section (1), but it is sufficient to take note of the fact that there are 5 groups of members under Groups A to E for constituting the Court.

4. As has already been mentioned above, the petitioners were elected from amongst t































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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top