Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 44382
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S., JJ
Vice Chancellor, Kerala University of Fisheries & Ocean Studies – Appellant
Versus
Mohammad Rameesh K.P. – Respondent
Writ Appeal No. 2007 of 2025 | WP(C) No. 29158 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri N. Satheesh
For the Respondents:
Interim writ relief against an ongoing statutory election process is not ordinarily maintainable; the remedy lies in statutory election petitions, and applicability of committee-like recommendations to governance-elections requires detailed proceedings.
Headnote:(A) Statutory framework and constitutional remedies: Kerala High Court Act, 1958 - s.5(i); First Statutes 2013 - Chapter XXI Part I - Statutes 7 and 13; University Act provisions - election petitions before the Vice Chancellor (Statute 13); interdict in writ jurisdiction and the scope of Art.226 in elections.
(B) Key legal principles: interim judicial interference in ongoing statutory elections is not ordinarily warranted; where a right or liability is created by a statute giving a special remedy, the remedy provided by that statute must be availed of.
(C) Important facts: notification for election to governing council; nomination of a candidate rejected on grounds of arrears under a committee’s recommendations; interim relief directing provisional inclusion granted by the single judge; challenge in writ appeal.
(D) Main issues: applicability of committee recommendations to all university elections vs. only student union elections; maintainability of interim relief; availability of statutory remedy vs. writ jurisdiction. (E) The court's findings and reasoning (ratio decidendi): the interim relief order was interfered with; the applicability of recommendations to all elections requires detailed consideration; interim relief granting final relief via writ petition is unwarranted; Statutory remedy under First Statutes 2013 provides a specific forum and procedure for election disputes; the contentions regarding applicability to governance council elections are left to be decided in appropriate proceedings. (F) The final decision or result: the writ appeal is allowed and the impugned interim order is set aside; the question of applicability of the recommendations to the governing council elections is left open. (G) Parties involved: administrative/academic authorities (appellants) and election petitioner (respondent) along with a co-respondent. (H) Dissent or alternative viewpoints: not part of the judgment; no separate dissent noted.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. interim challenge to ongoing university election (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
JUDGMENT
Muralee Krishna, J.
The respondents in W.P.(C)No.29158 of 2025 filed this writ appeal under Section 5 (i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 , challenging the interim order dated 08.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge directing them to provisionally accept the nomination of the respondent/writ petitioner and to include him in the list of eligible candidates provisionally and subject to further orders.
2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the Kerala University of Fisheries and Ocean Studies has issued Ext.P1 notification dated 18.07.2025, for election to the student constituency. The scrutiny of the nomination was scheduled on 04.08.2025. There was no objection against the nomination of the respondent. However, at the time of scrutiny, the 2nd appellant rejected the nomination of the respondent, citing that he has academic arrears and therefore he is not eligible as per the Lyngdoh Committee report. But, the proceedings are deliberately not communicated to the respondent to non-suit him. Besides that, the Lyngdoh Committee report is applicable only in the case of election to the University Union and not in the case of General Council and such other authorities of the University. The said body is an authority under the University Act . The nomination of the respondent was accepted during the previous election, and the nomination of the respondent is now deliberately rejected to prevent him from contesting the election and to aid the student organisation owing allegiance to the ruling party. Hence, the respondent/petitioner filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:
“a) Call for the records leading to the rejection of nomination of the petitioner and set aside the same;
b) issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to accept the nomination of the petitioner and include him in the final list of candidates;
c) issue a writ declaring that the rejection of the nomination of the petitioner is totally arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable;
d) issue a writ declaring that the Lyngdoh Committee report will have no application in the case of election to the authorities of the University as defined under Section 9 of the University Act ”
3. On 08.08.2025, when the writ petition came up for consideration before the learned Single Judge, the same was admitted, and the interim relief as mentioned above was granted. Being aggrieved, the appellants/respondents are now before this Court with the instant writ appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants/respondents and the learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the nomination of the respondent was rejected on the basis of Lyngdoh Committee recommendations, which were accepted by the Apex Court inUniversity of Kerala v. Council of Principals’, Colleges, Kerala and others [ (2006) 8 SCC 304 ] An overall reading of the Lyngdoh Committee recommendation implies that it’s terms apply to the election of student representatives for constituting the University Governing Council also. Allowing students to participate in the election, limiting the recommendations of the Lyngdoh Committee only to student union elections, would amount to a deterioration of the standard of the Governing Council. The learned counsel would further submit that, as per the Kerala University of Fisheries and Ocean Studies First Statutes, 2013 (‘ First Statutes 2013 ’, in short), a provision is provided to file an election petition before the Vice Chancellor. Without exercising that right, the writ petitioner approached this Court, and the interim order granted by the learned Single Judge will unsettle the entire election process. By relying on the judgment of this Court inVinod and other v. Returning Officer, G-28, Kainakari Grama Panchayath [2021 (1) KHC 105] the learned c
