Judgment N.L.Untwalia, J. 1. The petitioners case is that he is a Lecturer in Political Science in Saharsa College. He was declared elected as a member of the Senate of the Bhagalpur university in the election held on the 10th of November, 1952, from the Teachers Constituency of the said College. The fourth-respondent was a rival candidate of the petitioner from the said constituency but in the election he was defeated, Altogether 25 votes had been cast in which one was declared invalid and out of the remaining 24 votes the petitioner and the fourth respondent secured 12 votes each. The decision was taken by lot in which the fourth respondent participated wherein the petitioner got elected and was declared so on the 12th of November, 1962. At the time of the election on 10-11-62, respondent No. 4 objected to the casting of vote by one Professor Vidyanath Misra on the ground that he was not a member of the teaching staff of Saharsa College at the relevant time. On 13-11-62, a day after the declaration of the result of the election, he made an application to the Registrar, Bhagalpur University, respondent No. 3, making a prayer therein for recounting of votes to resolve his daubts. On 17-11-62 he made another application to tne Registrar for favouring him with a certified copy of the forwarding letter of the Presiding Officer dated 10-11-62 to enable him to take such legal steps as may be necessary. Finally, on 21-11-62 respondent No. 4 made an application to the Vice-chancellor, respondent No. 2, for investigating into the whole case and rendering justice to him. The University constituted a Committee to enquire into the allegations levelled by respondent no. 4 and the saw Committee recommended for the rejection of the objections raised by him. The Vice-Chancellor forwarded the findings ot the Committee to the Chancellor, respondent no. 1, under Sec. 52 of the Bihar State Universities (Patna, University of Bihar, Bhagalpur and Ranchi) Act, 1960 (Bihar Act XIV of 1960), hereinafter called the Act. On being asked to show cause, the petitioner filed his rejoinder before the Chancellor who heard him and respondent No. 4 on the 25th of April, 1963. 1, under Sec. 52 of the Bihar State Universities (Patna, University of Bihar, Bhagalpur and Ranchi) Act, 1960 (Bihar Act XIV of 1960), hereinafter called the Act. On being asked to show cause, the petitioner filed his rejoinder before the Chancellor who heard him and respondent No. 4 on the 25th of April, 1963. He has been pleased to set aside the election of the petitioner by his order decree 18-5-63 and to declare respondent No. 4 as the duly elected Teachers Representative to the Senate from Saharsa College. The petitioner has obtained a rule against the respondent to show cause why the order of the Chancellor dated 18-5-63 (Annexure G) be not quashed by grant of a writ in the nature of certiorari. Notice of the rule was served on the respondents and cause has been shown by Mr. A.B. Jha, learned counsel for respondent no. 4, and Mr. Dinesh Charan on behalf of respondents 2 and 3. 2. Mr. Balbhadra Prasad Singh appearing in support of the rule has urged the following 3 points: (i) That respondent No. 4 did not lodge with the Registrar of the University a written notice of the objection specifying the grounds upon which he questioned the validity of the election within 7 days of the publication of the result of the election, as required by paragraph 10(1) of Chapter III of Bhagalpur University Statutes framed under Sec.30 of the Act; hence the reference by the vice-Chancellor to the Chancellor under Sec. 52 of the Act was ultra vires and invalid. That being so, the Chancellor has no jurisdiction to set aside the election. By committing an obvious error of law in this regard, he wrongly assumed jurisdiction and illegally set aside the election, of the petitioner and declared respondent No. 4 as elected. (ii) The decision of the Committee appointed to count the votes at the time of the election and to declare the result is final as to the validity of any vote or votes recorded under Rule 26 of the Bhagalpur university Rules for election of members to the Senate and the Chancellor had no jurisdiction to go into the matter. (iii) The vote cast by professor Vidyanath Misra was valid and the chancellors decision is erroneous in law in that regard. 3. (iii) The vote cast by professor Vidyanath Misra was valid and the chancellors decision is erroneous in law in that regard. 3. In my opinion, the first point urged on behalf of the petitioner is well founded and must succeed. In that view of the matter, it is not necessary for me to discuss or decide the other two points urged on his behalf. 4. Sec.17 of the Act provides- "The Senate shall consist of the following persons, namely,-- * * * * * Representative members. (i) such members of teachers (other than Deans, Principals and Heads of University Departments) having five years teaching experience as is equivalent to one half of the total number of colleges to be determined in sucn rotational order as may be prescribed by the Statutes, to be elected one each by the teaching staff of each college comprised in the said number; * * * * * Sec.30 of the Act says- "Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Statutes may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely- * * * * * (c) the constitution .....of the authorities of the University; * * * * *" It is admitted on all hands that Statutes were prepared By the Bhagalpur University under Sec.30 in the manner provided in Sec.31 of the Act. paragraph 6(6) of Chapter IV empowers the syndicate to "make rules and an necessary arrangements for the holding of elections to the Senate and other bodies of the university" and in exercise of that power Bhagalpur university Rules for Election of Members of the Senate were framed. Paragraph 10 of Chapter III of the statutes reads thus: (1) If any dispute arises with regard to any election to or by the Senate, a written notice of the objection, specifying the grounds upon which the validity of the election is questioned, shall be sent to the Registrar within seven days of the publication of the result of the election. (2) The Registrar shall submit the notice of the objection to the Vice-Chancellor, or, in his absence from the headquarters, or, when the office of the Vice-Chancellor is vacant to the Treasurer, or, in his absence, to the member of the Syndicate appointed to perform his duties under Sec.11(b) of We Act, who snail thereupon either himself make an enquiry or cause such enquiry to be made, by any officer of the university or any other person or committee appointed by him in connection with any dispute regarding the election, as he may deem fit and proper and receive a report in connection therewith within a specified time. (3) After considering the representation and the report, If any, and all other connected facts, the Vice-Chancellor shall refer the dispute to the Chancellor as provided in Sec. 52 of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1960, for his orders." Section 52 of the Act provides for reference to the Chancellor of "Disputes as to constitution of university autnormes and bodies" and runs thus- "If any question arises whether any person has duly become, or is entitled to be, a member of the senate, the Syndicate or the Academic Council, the matter shall be referred to the Chancellor whose decision thereon shall be final". The manner and the terms of making such a reference with regard to any election to, or by, the Senate is provided for, in paragraph 10 of Chapter III of the Statutes. It is well established that raising election disputes is not a common law right. The remedy and the procedure have to be provided by the Act or the Statute itself and must be exercised within the limit of time provided therein. The first question which falls for decision, tneretore, is whether respondent No. 4 raised the dispute with regard to the election in question by sending a written notice of the objection specifying the grounds upon which the validity of the election was questioned to the Registrar within 7 days of the publication of the result of the election, as required by paragraph 10(1) of Chapter III of the Statute. It is necessary to quote the 3 applications of respondent No. 4 dated 13-11-62, 17-11-62 and 21-11-62 (annexure B, C and D respectively) in full- "To The Registrar, (Returning Officer), Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur--7. It is necessary to quote the 3 applications of respondent No. 4 dated 13-11-62, 17-11-62 and 21-11-62 (annexure B, C and D respectively) in full- "To The Registrar, (Returning Officer), Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur--7. Subject-- counting of votes of the College, teachers constituency, Sir, I have serious doubts in the counting of the votes of my college (Saharsa college). It appeared to me some of the members of the Committee were strongly in favour of my contestant. Not only that my contestant often consulted one member of the Committee whenever he used to come out of the room for personal work before my eyes, I believe still that I have got 14 votes against my contestant Shri S.P. Singh who would have got only 11 votes. Thus even if one vote be declared invalid; I should win. I request you Sir, therefore, to order for recounting of votes of the college tooth and also consideration of the vote declared invalid by an entirely new committee constituted for this purpose. I shall be satisfied it my doudts are removed. Yours faithfully, Sd. Krishna Dutta, Jha, candidate for college 13-11-62. Teachers Constituency, from Saharsa. "TO The Vice-Chancellor, Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur--7. Sub:- Senate election from the college Teachers Constituency. Sir, I most humbly beg to submit that I was a candidate from Saharsa college and in the election held on 10-11-62 I got the majority votes, but the counting committee decided otherwise. I have already submitted a petition on dated 17-11-62 to your honour detailing my points against the decision, of the counting committee. I am still now confident that from any proper standard of judgment I should have been declared elected. I, therefore, pray your honour to investigate the whole case ana do Justice and quash the decision of the counting committee. Yours faitntuiiy Sd. Krishna Dutta Jha Candidate from Saharsa, college, Teacners Constituency. 21-11-62" By the application dated 13-11-62, it is clear, the petitioner wanted merely to remove his doubts in regard to the propriety or correctness of the counting of votes and tor that purpose asked the Registrar to order for recounting of votes and added that he would be satisfied if this doubts were removed. This application, in my opinion, was not meant, nor can it be so read by even stretching the language, to be an application questioning the validity of the election. This application, in my opinion, was not meant, nor can it be so read by even stretching the language, to be an application questioning the validity of the election. This is further clear from the application tiled on 17-11-62 (annexure C). In the first paragraph of this application, respondent No. 4 refers to his objection, petition dated 10-11-62 filed before the presiding Officer, Saharsa College Booth, and wants a certified copy of forwarding letter of the said presiding officer in connection with his objection petition. After narrating the facts about the alleged incapacity of Professor Vidyanath Mishra to cast his vote, in the end, respondent No. 4 merely prayed that "a certified copy of the said forwarding letter of the Presiding Officer may kindly be issued" to him to enable him "to take such legal steps as may be necessary. It is abundantly clear that even on this date, much less on 13-11-62, respondent No. 4 did not file any written notice or application before the Registrar questioning the validity of the election but was merely endeavouring to collect materials and papers to do so, it necessary. The third petition dated 21-11-62 (annexure D) although addressed to the Vice-chancellor can be taken to be the petition questioning the validity of the election and, to all intents and purposes, an. application within the meaning of paragraph 10 (1) of Chapter III of the statutes. In this petition respondent no. 4 made a reference to his petition, dated 17-11-62 and not to the petition datea 13-11-62. It is important to note he claimed that in the petition dated 17-11-62 he had given details of his points against the decision of the Counting Committee and further claimed that he was confident that from any proper standard of judgment he should have been declared elected ana prayed to quash the decision of the Counting committee namely, the declaration of the result of the election of the petitioner. But this application undisputedly was filed beyond time. 5. In regard to the point discussed above, on consideration of the language of the petitions dated 13-11-62 and 17-11-62, the Chancellor has said - "It is clear that the idea of objection to the election was prominent in his mind. Shri Krishna Dutta Jha is after all a teacher not wen acquainted with the drafting of petitions. 5. In regard to the point discussed above, on consideration of the language of the petitions dated 13-11-62 and 17-11-62, the Chancellor has said - "It is clear that the idea of objection to the election was prominent in his mind. Shri Krishna Dutta Jha is after all a teacher not wen acquainted with the drafting of petitions. That he was objecting to the election in some form or the other from the loth November, even at the time of poll and immediately thereafter within three days on the 13th followed by a petition, on the 17th clearly snows that he wanted to object to the election and I treat these two petitions dated 13th and 17th as constituting the election petitions. He makes his intention clear in his petition dated 21st November 1962, though this petition was filed after seven days and could not be treated as an election petition, but for the purpose of knowing his intention, this petition can be read with the other two". In my opinion, the Chancellor has committed an error of law, which is apparent on the face of his order, me fact that respondent No. 4 intended to question the validity of the election or that the idea of objecting to the election was prominent in his mind when he filed the petitions dated 13-11-62 and 17-11-62 is irrelevant. The intention or motive is of no consequence in this case, it may well be that he filed those petitions for preparing grounds upon which he wanted to question the validity of the ejec- tion. But that cannot be equated with the filing of we election petition or be tantamount to questioning the validity of the election by filing of written notice of the objection. There is no doubt in my mind that in the eye of law it was so done for the first time by the petition dated 21-11-62 beyond the time. 6. In Nusserwanjee Pestonjee V/s. Meer Mynoodeen Khan Wullud Meer Sudroodeen Khan Banaaur, 6 Moo Ind App 134 (re) Sir John patteson, delivering the judgment of their Lordships of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, has said at page 155. ". . . 6. In Nusserwanjee Pestonjee V/s. Meer Mynoodeen Khan Wullud Meer Sudroodeen Khan Banaaur, 6 Moo Ind App 134 (re) Sir John patteson, delivering the judgment of their Lordships of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, has said at page 155. ". . . .that whenever jurisdiction is given to a court by an Act of Parliament, or by a, Regulation in India (which has the same effect as an Act of parliament), and such jurisdiction is only given upon certain specified terms contained in the Regulation itself, it is a universal principle that these terms must be complied with, in order to create and raise the jurisdiction, for if they be not complied with the jurisdiction does not arise". Following this decision, Ramaswami, J. as my Lord the Chief Justice then was, sitting with Jamuar J. has said in Dr. Shayamakant Verma V/s. Dr. Harishanker Prasad ILR 32 Pat 392 : ( AIR 1954 Pat 65 ). "Learned Counsel relied upon the familiar principle that whenever a special jurisdiction is conferred on a Court or Tribunal by a statute and the special jurisdiction is conferred upon terms, it is essential that the terms must be compiled with in order to create the special jurisdiction. In my opinion, the argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner is well founded. xx xx xx xx Applying the principle illustrated by these authorities, it is clear that the condition of limitation prescribed in Rule 5 (1) is a preliminary condition upon which the jurisdic tion of the election commissioner rests. Since the elec tion petition had been presented in this case beyond the period of fourteen days prescribed in Rule 5 (1), it must be held that the Election Commissioner acted beyond his jurisdic tion in condoning the delay and in entertaining the election petition: In Barker V/s. Palmer, (1881) 8 Q B D 9, it was held that there was no jurisdiction to entertain proceed ings on summons delivered out of time, I would be quoting with advantage a few lines from Craiesl on Statute Law, 5th edition, p. 246, which run thus- "As a general rule, statutes which enable persons to take legal proceedings under certain specified circumstances must be accurately obeyed notwithstanding the tact that their provisions may be expressed In merely affirmative language. Thus, under Sec.2 of the Summary jurisdiction Act, 1857, after the hearing by a justice of the peace of any summary information, either party may, if dissatisfied.... apply in writing within three days .... to the said justice to state and sign a case setting forth the facts. In Edwards V/s. Roberts, (1891)) 1 Q B 302 the appellant neglected to get the case stated within the three days prescribed, and it was held, in consequence, that me Court had no jurisdiction, to hear the appeal. This rule may also be expressed thus--that when; a statute centers jurisdiction upon a tribunal of limited autnonty and statutory origin, the conditions and qualifications annexed to the grant must be strictly complied with". 7. It was argued by Mr. A.B. Jha learned counsel for respondent No. 4 which argument was combated not only by learned counsel for the petitioner but also by Mr. Dinesh Charan, learned counsel for the University, that paragraph 10 (1) of Chapter 111 of the Bhagalpur university Statutes is repugnant to the provisions contained in Sec. 52 of the Act and, therefore, is ultra vires Sec.30 which states that the Statutes nave got to be framed SUD- ject to the provisions of the Act. In my opinion, the ar gument is unsound and must be rejected. Section 52 merely provides that, it any question arises as to whether a person has duly become a member of the Senate, the matter shall be referred to the Chancellor, whose decision thereon shall be final. It does not provide the manner ot, or the. conditions upon, which reference in a particular kind of dispute has to be made to the Chancellor, it any dispute arises with regard to any election to, or by, the Senate, the manner in and conditions on, which the vice- Chancelior is authorised to make the reference to the Chancellor is provided in paragraph 10 of Chapter III of the statutes. There is no repugnancy at all between the provisions of Sec. 52 of the Act and the said provisions contained in the Statutes. The tenth paragraph aforesaid of the Statutes is merely a supplementary provision and not, in any way, repugnant to Sec. 52 of the Act. There is no repugnancy at all between the provisions of Sec. 52 of the Act and the said provisions contained in the Statutes. The tenth paragraph aforesaid of the Statutes is merely a supplementary provision and not, in any way, repugnant to Sec. 52 of the Act. it is a well known principle of law that, if a Statute directs a thing to be done in a particular way, that thing shall not, even it there be no negative word, be done in any other way The Chancellor, in my opinion, gets jurisdiction to decide an election dispute only upon a valid reference. The reference by the Vice-Chancellor was invalid because the dispute was raised and the validity of the election was ques tioned by respondent No. 4 beyond 7 days of the publica tion of the result. by a patently erroneous decision m that regard, the Chancellor assumed jurisdiction upon an invalid reference. 8. In the result, I hold that the order of the Chancellor dated 18-5-63 (annexure G to the writ application) is ultra wires and without jurisdiction and must be quashed by grant of a writ in the nature of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I would accordingly allow the application but, in the circumstances of the case, make no order as to cost. V.Ramaswami, J. 9 I agree.