YAGHVENDRA KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anurag Khanna learned Counsel for the respondent. The petitioner is a student of B.Tech. Course in the institute known as Chaudhari Chotu Ram Institute of Engineering and Technology which is a campus college of Chaudhari Charan Singh University, Meerut. The petitioner has assailed the action of the University and the notification dated 6.10.2012 challenging the holding of the Students Union Election on the ground that it is in violation of Ordinance 12.2 of the Ordinances framed by the University and is not in conformity with Clause 6.5.2 of the Lyngdoh Committee report as accepted by the Apex Court in the case of University of Kerala v. Council and Others, 2006 8 SCC 304. Sri Awasthi submits that the academic session had already commenced in July, and the students of B.Tech had already been admitted according to the tentative academic calendar copy whereby has been filed as Annexure-2. To substantiate his submissions he also relies on the examination schedule of the first sessional examination of first semester held in October, 2012 to contend that the academic session had begun and the examinations have also been held and, therefore, in view of the definition as referred to hereinabove the elections are being held beyond the period prescribed therein. In the circumstances he submits that the elections cannot be held at all and the notification be quashed. A perusal of the tentative academic calendar indicates that the start of session has been indicated on 23.7.2012.

(2.) He further contends that the provisions of Ordinance-12 are mandatory and not directory so as to invite any penalty if the elections are delayed by a few days or two weeks. He has further submitted that the election process commenced with the notification on 5.10.2010 and, therefore, the same may not be interfered with as the elections are scheduled to be held tomorrow, for which reliance is placed on Supreme Court decision in the case of Election Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar, 2000 8 SCC 216.

(3.) The writ petition was ultimately dismissed on account of lapse of time by the judgment dated 25.8.2011 and also on account of the learned Counsel not having appeared before the learned Single Judge.