S D SIDDHIQUI Vs. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner is one of the three unsuccessful candidates for the post of President to the Delhi University Teachers' Association (DUTA) in the Elections held on 31.8.2005. He has prayed for the issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the DUTA Elections and for the quashing of the election result in respect of the post of President. CAN A WRIT ISSUE AGAINST DUTA

(2.) At the first hearing of the petition Mr. Y.P. Narula, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.4, had raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition against the DUTA. A quarter century ago the law on this subject was laid down in Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs. International Airport Authority, 1979 SC 1628. It was further explained in Ajay Hasia Vs. Khalid Mujib, AIR 1981 SC 487 in these words:

(3.) A Restatement of the law is readily available in the decision in U.P. State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd. Vs. Chandra Bhan Dubey and Others, AIR 1999 Supreme Court 753. It would be most fruitful to reproduce the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in extensio, since an answer to the gravamen of the contention can be found therein: "The language of Article 226 does not admit of any limitation on the powers of High Court for the exercise of jurisdiction thereunder though by various decisions of this Court with varying and divergent views it has been held that jurisdiction under Article 226 can be exercised only when body or authority, decision of which is complained, was exercising its power in the discharge of public duty and that writ is a public law remedy. In, Rohtas Industries Ltd. Vs. Rohtas Industries Staff Union, (1976) 2 SCC 82: (AIR 1976 SC 425) it was submitted before the Constitution Bench that an award under Section 10- A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 savours of a private arbitration and was not amenable to correction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court said as under (at p. 429 of AIR):