Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAM NAGINA RAI versus VICE CHANCELLOR VEER BAHADUR SINGH PURVANCHAL UNIVERSITY

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ram Nagina Rai v. Vice Chancellor Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University - WRIT - C No. 77909 of 2005 [2006] RD-AH 193 (3 January 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

COURT NO.31

CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO.77909 OF 2005

Ram Nagina Rai                                          .....Petitioner

Versus

Vice Chancellor Veer Bahadur Singh,

Purvanchal University,

Jaunpur and another.                                ..Respondents

-----------  

Hon'ble Bharati Sapru, J.

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against an order passed by the Vice Chancellor dated 29.11.05 by which, election has been settled in favour of the respondent - Committee of Management.  

The petitioner has brought the notice of this Court two earlier orders passed by this Court in writ petition filed by both sides. By its order dated 13.9.04 passed in earlier petitions, this Court had directed that fresh elections were to be held within three months.

That has been done.  The result is out.  The respondent-Committee of Management has won the elections.   The present petitioner states that certain procedural irregularities took place during the election procedure.  He also says that the voter's list was not properly prepared.  

I have also heard learned counsel for the respondent Shri G.K. Singh and Shri Anil Tewari  for the University who have both raised preliminary objections. They say that the impugned order passed by the Vice Chancellor is not without jurisdiction.  They also argued that the impugned order passed by the Vice Chancellor can be reviewed by way of filing a reference under Section 68 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973.  Learned counsel for the petitioner, in reply, has stated that in the present case, there are circumstances, which would warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution despite there being statutory remedy available.  

Learned counsel for the respondent has also placed before this Court a decision of the Allahabad High Court passed in almost identical circumstances as reported in 1998 (2) Local Bodies and Educational Service Reporter 701 in the case of Committee of Management Jawaharlal Nehru Smarak Post Graduate College, Maharajganj and another Versus Gorakhpur University and others, where also,  the Allahabad High Court held that if an alternative remedy is available, the Court should not exercise its extra ordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.  

The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Gajendra Pratap has argued that in this case, there are exceptional circumstances  and the remedy provided under Section 68  would be of no avail as Chancellor takes a long time to decide such matters.  However, the position at present  is that there is a statutory remedy but the petitioner has not availed of it as yet.  Therefore, it does lie in the mouth of the petitioner to say that the alternative remedy is either adequate not or that it will take a lot of time.  

In my opinion, the proper course in the present case  for the petitioner would be to approach the Chancellor under Section 68 of the U.P. State Universities  Act and seek his remedies over there.  

The contention as raised by the learned counsel for the respondent Committee as well as the University are well founded and accepted by this Court.  As a result of which, the writ petition is dismissed.  But there will be no order as to costs.  

However, I may add that in case the petitioner approaches the Chancellor under Section 68 of the U.P. State Universities Act, this Court expects that the Chancellor shall dispose of the matter at an early date, preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing the reference.  

Dated : 3.1.06

L.F.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.