ABRAHAM P.MATHEW Vs. VICE CHANCELLOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question to be considered and decided is whether a person, whose nomination (for election to the Senate of the respondent University) is rejected, can be termed as a 'candidate' for the purpose of maintaining an 'Election Petition' under Statute 90 of Chapter V of the Calicut University (Conduct of Elections to Various Authorities or Bodies) First Statutes, 1975 (herein after referred to as 'Statutes'), read with Statute Nos. 29 and 37 of the said Statutes, in view of the restrictive definition of the term 'candidate' as given under Statute 2 (1) (c) of the above Statutes. The petitioner is the Principal of Marthoma College, Chungathara in Malappuram District and is a member of the Syndicate of the respondent University. Election of members to the Senate was notified by the University as per the notification dated 23-1-2013; appendix of which has been produced as Ext. P-1. In response to the said notification, the petitioner sought to place his candidature by filing nomination; a format of which stands produced as Ext. P-2. It is contended that the nomination was put up strictly in tune with Ext. P-3 'Instructions to the Candidates'. The last date for submitting the nomination paper to the Returning Officer (who is the second respondent herein) was specified as 7-2-2013; the date of scrutiny was fixed as 11-2-2013 and the date for counting of the votes was specified as 16-4-2013; as borne by Ext. P-1.

(2.) The nomination submitted by the petitioner came to be rejected by the second respondent, on the ground that the person who 'seconded' the nomination had not put the 'date' along with his signature. When the petitioner came to know the rejection, Ext. P-4 complaint was preferred before the Returning Officer. The same was replied by the second respondent/ Returning Officer, vide Ext. P-5, holding that the nomination was invalid for the reason mentioned herein before. This in turn is under challenge in this writ petition.

(3.) When the matter was taken up for consideration, the very maintainability of the writ petition was doubted in view of the alternate remedy available, by way of 'election petition' to be preferred before the competent authority. Mr. T. Krishnan Unni, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that no alternate remedy was available for the petitioner, in so far as the 'election petition', if at all any, could be preferred only by a "candidate" as discernible from Statute 90(1)(b) (iii). It was pointed out that the term "candidate" has been defined under Statute No. 2 (1) (c) as 'a person qualified to seek election, who has been duly nominated in accordance with the Statutes'. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the very nomination of the petitioner having been rejected, the petitioner did not fit into the definition of the term "candidate" as given under Statute 2 (1) (c) and as a natural consequence, he cannot validly institute/maintain an 'election petition' as well. It is further pointed out that Statute No. 37 enables the Returning Officer to conduct scrutiny and reject the nomination for the reasons mentioned therein and that the reason given in Ext. P-5 (for not showing the 'date' of signature by the 'seconder') is not a valid reason. No such stipulation is incorporated in Ext. P-3 'Instructions to the Candidates' as well. It is contended that nomination for election to various bodies of the University, is not liable to be rejected for flimsy reasons and that the date of signature is very much discernible from the particulars given in the filled up nomination. Reliance is sought to be placed on Statute No. 35 as to the presentation of nomination paper and requirements for a valid nomination and the scope of scrutiny of nomination under Statute No. 36. Reference is also made to the decision rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan reported in Gopal Singh v. The Election Tribunal-cum-Additional Civil Judges (S.D.), 2009 AIR(Raj) 100 (Paragraphs 33 to 36) and reliance is sought to be placed on the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Kerala Public Service Commissioner v. State Information Commission, 2011 2 KerLT 88.