NIKULBHAI AMBALAL PATEL Vs. HEMCHANDRACHARYA NORTH GUJARAT UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Articles 14, 19 and 226 of the Constitution of India as well as under the Hemchandracharay North Gujarat University Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the University Act") for the prayers as prayed for in the petition inter alia that appropriate writ, order or direction may be issued quashing the impugned public notice dated 29.11.2016 issued by the respondent-University at Annexure-A to this petition extending the date of enrollment of registered graduate on the grounds stated in the memo of petition.

(2.) Heard learned advocate, Shri Dipen Desai for the petitioner, learned advocate, Shri B.H. Kher for the respondent no.1 and learned advocate, Shri Archit Jani for the respondent nos.2 to 5.

(3.) Learned advocate, Shri Desai referred to the background of the facts and the impugned advertisement at Annexure-A stating that for the applications, which have been invited on line, time has been extended and thereby voters' list has been enhanced to serve the purpose. He pointedly referred to Annexure-B, Statutes made by the respondent no.1-University in exercise of power under Section 84 of the University Act. Learned advocate, Shri Desai referred to Statute 1(3) and submitted that any Graduate referred to was required to get enrollment by making an application in prescribe form so as to reach the University office latest by 1st December and, thereafter, the roll of the registered graduates as on first January of the following year would be prepared, which would be the voters' list for the election. He also submitted that Statute 4 has a reference to further indication that a person desiring enrollment shall at-least 28 days before the date of preparation of electoral roll make an application and it is on the basis of such application, the electoral roll would be prepared. Thereafter, he submitted that as stated in Statute 7, the electoral roll of the college teacher is prepared. Learned advocate, Shri Desai, therefore, submitted that by extending the period without any amendment in the Statute made in exercise of power under Section 84 of the University Act, the date could not have been extended by such executive instructions. Learned advocate, Shri Desai, therefore, emphasized on two aspects i.e. one with regard to the jurisdiction or the authority for any such extension and secondly, the ground or justification for such extension even if it is assumed that there is such power. Learned advocate, Shri Desai submitted that since it is a time prescribed by the Statute made in exercise of the power under Section 84 of the University Act, the date could not have been modified or extended without corresponding effect in the Statute itself and, therefore, any such advertisement is devoid of any such authority. He also submitted that as stated in Statute 4, the procedure is also indicative of the fact that preparation of electoral roll of the graduate enrolled for the purpose of voter's list has to be first January of the next year. He, therefore, submitted that since there is no such power, it could not have been extended. He also referred to the background of the facts that earlier petition was filed and against the refusal of the grant of interim orders, Letters Patent Appeal (Stamp) No.54/2017 along with Civil application No.12670/2017 was preferred before the Hon'ble Division Bench and the Hon'ble Division Bench as per the order dated 13.03.2017 and, thereafter, as per order dated 11.09.2017 disposed of the said Letters Patent Appeal and Civil Application and observed for the expeditious hearing of the present petition. He, therefore, submitted that since enrollment of the person after the prescribed date in the Statute would be illegal and it is aimed at inclusion of the voters' list to inflate the voters' list, the present petition may be allowed quashing and setting aside the advertisement granting extension. He also referred to Section 11(4) of the University Act, which provides for the power of the Vice Chancellor and submitted that assuming that the Vice Chancellor has such administrative power, in case of emergency, there has to be justification for exercise of such power in emergency. He submitted that currency note ban is relied upon for such extension which has no nexus for such extension inasmuch as at-least it will not have any bearing if the currency notes of Rs.500/- and Rs.1,000/- denomination were banned. He, therefore, submitted that there is total lack of power and the advertisement is contrary to the statute.