JUDGMENT

The petitioner is a student of the 1st respondent - “Sree Narayana Law College” ('College', for short) and says that she was returned as a successful candidate in the first round of elections to the College Union. However, on the date of the second stage of election, wherein she wanted to contest as a candidate, she was abducted by certain students, and thus incapacitated from making her nomination or even in casting her vote. She says that, when these matters were placed before the College, they conducted an enquiry under the aegis of the Grievance Redressal Committee ('Committee', for short), which found substance in her allegations; and that, thereafter, the Principal of the College, acting under Ext.P2 Regulations, approved the initiation of disciplinary action against the perpetrators, but without taking a decision as to whether fresh elections are to be conducted. She thus prays that competent Authority of either the College or the Mahatma Gandhi University (M.G.University) – to which it is affiliated, be directed to take a decision in this regard without any further delay.

2. The afore submissions of Sri.George J.Nalappat –

learned counsel for the petitioner, were answered by Sri.Aravinda Kumar Babu T.K. – learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, saying that it is true that the “Committee” has already taken a decision, which has been approved by the Principal, to initiate disciplinary action against the students who were prima facie found guilty of abducting the petitioner. He affirmed that, however, the “Committee” did not take a decision as to the conduct of re-elections, because they are under the impression that they do not have the power to take such a decision. He then explained that, at the behest of those students against whom disciplinary action has been now recommended by the College, the matter is pending before the Vice-Chancellor of the University; and thus prayed that petitioner be also directed to approach the said Authority to ventilate her grievances.

3. Sri.Surin George Ipe – learned Standing Counsel for the M.G.University, however, submitted that the decision to conduct a fresh election will have to be first taken by the College or its “Committee”, as the case may be, based on which recommendations alone, can the Vice-Chancellor act. He submitted that, therefore, if the “Committee” or the College is to take a final decision in this regard and place it before the Vice- Chancellor appositely, same can be considered, along with complaints of the students against whom disciplinary action has been ordered to be now initiated.

4. Sri.Thomas T.Varghese – learned counsel appearing for respondents 9 to 17, submitted that the allegations of the petitioner against his clients are wholly baseless and concocted and that she had, in fact, left the scene of the election on her own voluntarily. He submitted that, therefore, the attempt of the petitioner is only to frustrate the legitimate processes of election, for questionable reasons.

5. When I evaluate and consider the afore submissions, it is clear that, on one hand, the “Committee” of the College has already found that there is merit in the allegations of the petitioner; while, on the other, the students against whom disciplinary action has been recommended, have already approached the Vice-Chancellor. In such scenario, the question as to which Authority should take a decision on the conduct of re-elections – if so found necessary, is the only surviving one for consideration of this Court.

6. As I have seen above, the College says that a decision in this regard cannot be taken by them; while the University maintains that, it is for them to do so at the first instance.

7. Therefore, acceding to the arguments of Sri.Surin George Ipe – learned Standing Counsel for the M.G.University, I am certainly of the view that the College or its Grievance Redressal Committee must consider the question of requirement of re-conduct of the second stage of el