IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

THURSDAY, THE 25^TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 4TH JYAISHTA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 16027 OF 2023 PETITIONER:

UBAIDULLA A.

AGED 38 YEARS S/O SAITHALAVI A.M., ADHIKARITHODI, ERNAD MELMURI, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676517 BY ADVS.

RAGHUL SUDHEESH J.LAKSHMI BINI DAS ABHIJITH A.S.

VARSHA T.V.

ELIZABETH MATHEW RESPONDENTS:

1 CALICUT UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR CALICUT UNIVERSITY CAMPUS, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O. MALAPPURAM, PIN - 673635

2 THE RETURNING OFFICER CALICUT UNIVERSITY CALICUT UNIVERSITY CAMPUS, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O. MALAPPURAM, PIN - 673635

3 THE REGISTRAR CALICUT UNIVERSITY CALICUT UNIVERSITY CAMPUS, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O. MALAPPURAM, PIN - 673635 SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN - SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

25.05.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who is working as a Senior Grade Assistant (Pareeksha Bhavan) in Calicut University has approached this Court regarding the election to be conducted to the Senate of the 1^st respondent University. The petitioner claims to be a candidate to the post of Senate member from the constituency reserved to non-teaching staff of the University under Section 17 of the Calicut University Act, 1975.

2. The basic grievance of the petitioner appears to be that the secrecy of ballot is not being maintained while conducting elections to the Senate of the 1^st respondent University. The petitioner has, therefore, sought for the following reliefs in the writ petition:-

“I. To issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ or order directing the 2^nd respondent to give necessary directions to the presiding officers of colleges of the 1^st respondent University not to enter the serial number in the counterfoil in the corresponding ballot paper.

II. To declare that the inclusion of serial number in the counterfoil in the corresponding ballot paper is violative of the provisions of Calicut University (Conduct of Elections to various Authorities or Bodies) First Statutes, 1975.

III. To issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2^nd respondent to direct presiding officers and the voters not to allow camera or mobile phone in the voting compartment so that no proof is demanded by any candidate or any union with regard to the casting of votes.

IV. To issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ or order directing the 2^nd respondent to take steps to maintain the secrecy of voting.

V. To issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ or order directing the 2^nd respondent to consider Ext.P4 representation submitted by the writ petitioner.

VI. To dispense with filing of the translation of vernacular documents.

AND VII. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit on the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. Sri. P.C. Sasidharan, the learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent University refers to counter affidavit filed in this Court as also the provisions of the Calicut University (Conduct of Elections to various Authorities or Bodies) First Statutes, 1975 and states that the apprehension of the petitioner is thoroughly misplaced. It is submitted that secrecy of voting is no way affected by the procedure contemplated by the above Statutes and the apprehension of the petitioner that secrecy of the polling will be affected is absolutely incorrect. It is submitted that there is absolutely no way in which the counterfoil and the ballot paper will come to the hands of the same person unless there is a challenge to the election and the Tribunal calls for the records (including the counterfoil and the ballot paper).

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent University and having regard to the matters set out in the counter affidavit filed by the 1^st respondent University, I am of the view that the apprehension expressed by the petitioner in this writ petition is misplaced and no relief need be