TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 1361X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ircumstances have cause of action to challenge the result of the election - The position may be different if the statute or the Rules and Regulations of the body / society vest such a right. The petitioner could have challenged the election only if had been an aspirant thereto and not otherwise. None can be permitted to perpetuate his / her term of elected office by contending that the result of the next election is vitiated - without participating in that election. If the same were to be permitted, it would vest a right in each and every member of outgoing elected body to challenge the election and may lead to multiple challenges indefinitely delaying the taking over of reigns by the newly elected body. The petition is thus dismisse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th January, 2016 records the contention of the senior counsel for the respondent no.1 University appearing on advance notice that the writ petition is not maintainable in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in S.D. Siddiqui Vs. University of Delhi 2006 (3) AD (Delhi) 290 that Delhi University Teachers Association (DUTA) is not a State or an instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and does not perform any public function and is a purely private body working for the welfare of teachers of the university and affiliated colleges and hence no writ lies against DUTA. 4. The senior counsel for the respondent no.1 University today also contends that the respondent no.2 DUWA is identica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner was a member of the Executive Committee for one term only and though was eligible to contest the election to the Executive Committee this year also but chose not to. 10. I have in the circumstances enquired from the counsel for the petitioner as to what is the cause of action of the petitioner to maintain this petition, even if the same was to be maintainable. 11. The counsel for the petitioner states that this is not a suit, for the petitioner to have a cause of action. 12. I am afraid that is not the position in law. It would be preposterous to say that a writ petition can be filed without a cause of action. In fact, the Division Bench of this Court in Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University Vs. Smit Rajput while relying ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ticle 226 shall ordinarily be a personal or individual right of petitioner. Applying the said principles it was held that person aggrieved must be the person who has suffered a legal grievance, a man against whom decision has been pronounced which has wrongfully deprived him from something. Further applying the said principles and finding that the petitioner therein was not a candidate in the election, it was held that the petitioner was not a person aggrieved to maintain a petition against the order of the Election Tribunal. 15. Supreme Court in Thammanna Vs. K. Veera Reddy (1980) 4 SCC 62, though in the context of election petition under the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 held that a respondent to an election petition, who neither ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dividual member or several members may file applications at any time resulting in confusion. Following the same, a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Allahabad in Committee of Management, Sri Kachcha Baba Inter College Vs. Regional Committee Pancham Mandal held that members of society have no right to agitate the result of elections. 18. At this stage, some further arguments have taken place and the senior counsel for the respondent no.1 University has also drawn attention to paragraph 30 of S.D. Siddiqui supra where it has been held that if one wishes to challenge an election, he has to file an election petition if that is provided under the relevant statute or Rules, and if there is no such provision in any statute or Rule for e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to acting VC. On enquiry whether in the University Ordinance and Statutes there is any difference between powers of the VC and the acting VC while the counsel for the petitioner is unable to answer, the counsel for the respondent No.1 University states that there is no distinction. 24. The counsel for the petitioner then contends that the Minutes of the GBM do not truly record what transpired at the GBM. 25. However this again amounts to entering into the arena of affairs of respondent no.2 DUWA and qua which the counsel for the petitioner has not pressed the writ petition in view of the judgment supra. 26. The petition is thus dismissed with liberty however to the petitioner to avail of the suit remedy with respect to the aff ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
