THIRUVANCHUR RADHAKRISHNAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is a member of the Legislative Assembly of Kerala. As per Ext. P1 notification issued by the 2nd respondent, the Cochin University of Science and Technology (CUSAT), it was notified that the Government have been pleased to nominate the petitioner along with another (both of them members of the Legislative Assembly) to the Syndicate of CUSAT as per S.17(1)(x) of the Cochin University of Science and Technology Act, 1986 (for short the Act). However, the first respondent thereafter issued Ext. P2 letter dt 12.6.1996, addressed to the second respondent stating that respondents 3 and 4 herein are nominated to be members of the Syndicate of CUSAT under S.17(1)(x) of the Act. Consequent on Ext. P2 letter, 2nd respondent issued Ext. P3 notification No. GA & EL.4/86 dt. 15.6.1996, notifying that the Government have nominated respondents 3 and 4 to the Syndicate of CUSAT as per S.17(1)(x) of the Act, and that their term of office is for a period of 4 years from 12.6.1996. The challenge in this O.P. is directed against Exts P2 and P3.

(2.) Learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the first respondent vehemently contended that Exts. P2 and P3 are not liable to be quashed by this Court, as according to the learned Advocate General, the Government is well within its right in issuing orders nominating respondents 3 and 4 to the Syndicate of the 2nd respondent University and being a political appointment, it is not open to challenge before any court of law. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent also echoed the submission made by the learned Advocate General and further submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to continue as a member of the Syndicate of CUSAT as he failed to attend three consecutive meetings, resulting in cessation of his office in terms of S.46(4) of the Act. A statement has also been filed by the 2nd respondent, in which the stand taken by them is that, since the petitioner failed to attend three consecutive meetings of the Syndicate held on 21.12.1995, 30.12.1995 and 17.1.1996, he ceased to be a member of the Syndicate by virtue of the provisions of S.46(4) of the Act It is also stated that by Ext. R2(a) letter dt. 15.4.1996, the petitioner was informed of the cessation of his membership as evidenced by Ext. R2(b) receipt evidencing the despatch of the letter to the petitioner. Since the petitioner has ceased to be a member of the Syndicate, the first respondent, invoking the provisions under S.17(1)(x) of the Act, nominated respondents 3 and 4 to the Syndicate as per Ext. P2 letter. Accordingly, on the basis of Ext. P2 letter, the 2nd respondent issued Ext P3 notification, notifying that respondents 3 and 4 have been nominated to the Syndicate of the University as per S.17(1)(x) of the Act The 2nd respondent has a further case that the petitioner failed to show sufficient cause for his failure to attend 3 consecutive meetings so as to enable the Authority - University to consider restoration of his membership as enjoined under the proviso to S.46(4) of the Act

(3.) Petitioner has filed a reply affidavit, denying the fact that he was informed of the cessation of his membership by Ext. R2 (a) and further the meeting scheduled to be held on 17.1.1996 was not held for want of quorum and therefore, that cannot be counted for the purpose of incurring disqualification under S.46(4) of the Act.