J U D G M E N T

Dated this the 16th day of February, 2022 S. Manikumar, CJ.

Appellants are the writ petitioners. The matter pertains to election to the Senate of Mahatma Gandhi University. Before the writ court, Exhibit P5 Sample Ballot Paper dated 21.10.2021 and Exhibit P9 notification declaring election results numbered as No.3110/1/2020/Election/Election to the Senate, issued by the Joint Registrar II (administrative Section), were sought to be quashed by the writ petitioners, as contrary to the statutory provisions, particularly, Section 43 of Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985.

2. Writ petitioners have also sought for a direction to the Vice Chancellor, Mahatma Gandhi University, Kottayam district, Kerala, 3rd respondent, to dispose of Exhibits P7 and P8 representations dated 19.10.2021 submitted to the 1st respondent, viz., Registrar, Mahatma Gandhi University, Kottayam district, Kerala.

3. After adverting to the rival submissions, Section 43 of the Act, 1985 and Statute 87 of Chapter 44 of the Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes, 1997, a learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, on the grounds, inter alia, that Statute 87 provides for an alternate remedy to prefer an election petition before the competent authority.

4. Being aggrieved, instant writ appeal is filed.

5. Short facts leading to the filing of instant appeal are, the 1st appellant is an elected member of the General Council of Mahatma Gandhi University Students Union and a candidate eligible to be a candidate for elections to the University Senate, as provided under Section 43 of the Act, 1985. The law provides for an election to the Senate, by a system of proportional representation, by means of single transferrable vote.

6. Vide Exhibit P5 dated 21.10.2021, the Mahatma Gandhi University issued a new system of ballot paper which provides for 7 ballot papers for 15 seats in one constituency. According to the appellants, it effectively convert the election into 7 transferable votes per voter.

7. It is the case of the appellants that, law is permitting only one ballot paper, in terms of single transferable vote; that the changed balloting system and the consequences are ultravires the Act and its provisions; that the new system kills the right of proportional representation of the minority, and is essentially, a violation of the statute by a statutory authority.

8. According to the appellants, the statutory authority refused to act despite notice, and alternate remedy is not effective or efficacious. Further, it is submitted that the challenge was not that of an election petition or of disputed facts, but rather a question of law and its implementation. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable and hence, this appeal.

9. Referring to Section 43 of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985, Mr. Paul Jacob, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that on 11.10.2021, a Single Ballot Paper Exhibit P1(a) was published. Exhibit P4 dated 27.09.2021 is the final list of candidates. According to him, quite contrary to the procedure contemplated under the statutory provisions, Exhibit P5 ballot paper has been issued. Thereafter, seven different ballot papers were published.

10. According to learned counsel for the appellants, the law provides for election to the Senate by a system of proportional representation, by means of single transferable vote. However, vide Exhibit P5 Sample Ballot Paper, Mahatma Gandhi University has issued a new system of ballot paper, which provides seven ballot papers for 15 seats, sought to be filled up by way of election, and this new balloting system is contrary to the provisions of the Statute.

11. Referring to the relevant paragraphs in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ananga Uday Singh Deo v. Ranga Nath Mishra and Others reported in (2002) 1 SCC 499, learned counsel for the appellants explained as to how, the system of proportional voting has to be done, which according to him, in the instant c