AKHLESH KUMAR SINGH Vs. VICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, Sri S. N. Upadhyay has accepted the notices on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2. The controversy in this petition is regarding rejection of the nomination paper of petitioner who wanted to contest the election of the office of Secretary of the students Union of University of Allahabad. The nomination has been rejected on the sole ground that on the date of filing of nomination only a photograph of the petitioner was affixed in the form and the identity card was produced before the respondent No. 2 on i4th Feb., 1991. No defect in the identity card has been pointed out. The only reason for rejecting the nomination is that the identity card did not accompany the form on 15th Feb., 1991 when it was filed.

(2.) I have perused the bye laws applicable to Allahabad University Students Union and in bye-laws 67(Ra) (La) (Va) there is no requirement for affixing paragraph are annexing identity card. The scrutiny of the nomination paper was to be held on 14th Feb., 1991 and final scrutiny was scheduled for 18th Feb., 1991. The identity card is such a document that every required to student is keep and it can be produced before the authorities at the time of scrutiny itself. In my opinion, the nomination of the petitioner has been illegally rejected. The purpose of the photograph and identity card is to ascertain identity of the student and further that he is bona fide student of the University and is eligible to contest the election. No doubt has been expressed in the impugned order regarding being his bona fide student of the University. Sri S.N. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondents stated that the petitioner will have an alternative remedy after election. My opinion, the ground on which the nomination paper has been rejected is wholly arbitrary and unjustifiable. In view of this, it will not be proper to deprive the petitioner from an opportunity to contest the election. It is well established that even in case where alternative remedy is available to the petitioner this Court can exercise powers under Art. 226 of the Constitution in appropriate case.

(3.) Sri S.N. Upadhyay further stated that in case the petitioner is not a bona fide student of the University he cannot be permitted to contest the election. There is no doubt about the position as stated by the learned counsel. However in the impugned order there is not a word expressing any doubt of petitioner's being a bona fide student of University. If he is not a student of the University he can be stopped from contesting election at any time.