Judgment :- 1. The short question that arises for determination in this O.P. is whether the Vice Chancellor of the Kerala University has, under the Kerala University Statutes, jurisdiction to decide an election dispute or whether the repository of power is vested only on the Chancellor. 2. Elections to the Kerala University Syndicate were held in August/September 1984. The petitioner has been declared elected. The 2nd respondent who lost the election filed an election petition under Statute 29 of the Kerala University (Conduct of Elections to various Authorities or Bodies) First Statutes 1974, for short the Statutes, praying (a) that he be declared elected; (b) the election may be set aside; and (c) a recount may be ordered. 3. When the Vice Chancellor proceeded to hear the election petition, a preliminary objection was raised that he has no jurisdiction to hear and dispose of the election petition. The Vice Chancellor as per Ext. P5 held that "he has jurisdiction to go on with the bearing of the case and pass orders on the validity of the counting done in the election process". A reference to the provisions of the Statutes may be sufficient to decide the jurisdictional question. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that after an election is over and the results have been declared, the Chancellor alone has got jurisdiction to decide the dispute and that the Vice Chancellor under the statute is only the authority to forward the election petition to the Chancellor. 4. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the University contends that any question arising as to whether any person has been duly elected or not has to be decided by the Vice-Chancellor. 5. The relevant provisions of the Statutes are thus: "4. 4. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the University contends that any question arising as to whether any person has been duly elected or not has to be decided by the Vice-Chancellor. 5. The relevant provisions of the Statutes are thus: "4. Vice-Chancellor responsible for conduct of election.-(1) Subject to the other provisions of these statutes, the Vice-Chancellor shall be responsible for the conduct of all elections held by the University and shall have power (a) to fix the date, place and time of all elections; (b) to prescribe the form of notice, nomination, letter of intimation, declaration paper, ballot paper, ballot paper cover and the envelope for any election, the form of any other record to be prepared or maintained in relation to an election and the instructions to be contained in the notification; (c) to decide, in cases of doubt, the validity or invalidity of each ballot paper or of each vote recorded thereon; (d) to declare the result of each election; and (e) to fix; (i) the date of notification; (ii) the last date for receipt of nominations; (iii) the date of scrutiny of nominations and publication of list of candidates validly nominated; (iv) the last date and hour for withdrawal of candidature; (v) the date of publication of the final list; (vi) the date of issue of ballot paper; (vii) the date and hour for the poll; (viii) the date and hour of scrutiny and counting of votes. xxx 5. Decisions of the Vice-Chancellor. (1) Unless otherwise specifically provided, the decision of the Vice-Chancellor on any question relating to election shall be final. (2) If any question arises as to whether any person has been duly elected as or is entitled to be a member of any authority or body of the University, the Vice-Chancellor, shall refer it to the chancellor, whose decision thereon shall be final. 29. Election Disputes. An election petition calling in question any election shall be made in writing. It shall be forwarded to the Vice-Chancellor with a fee of Rs. 100 remitted in a treasury to the credit of the Kerala University Fund so as to reach him within seven days of the declaration of the result of the election. x 66. 29. Election Disputes. An election petition calling in question any election shall be made in writing. It shall be forwarded to the Vice-Chancellor with a fee of Rs. 100 remitted in a treasury to the credit of the Kerala University Fund so as to reach him within seven days of the declaration of the result of the election. x 66. Recounting.-(1) Any candidate or his agent may, at any time during the counting of votes, either before the commencement or after the completion of any transfer of votes, request the Returning Officer to re-examine or recount the papers of all or any candidate (not being papers set aside at any previous transfer as finally disposed of) and the Returning Officer shall forthwith re-examine or recount the same accordingly. (2) The Returning Officer may, at his discretion recount the votes either once or more than once in any case in which he is not satisfied as to the accuracy of any previous count, provided that nothing in this statute shall make it obligatory on the Returning Officer to recount the same votes more than once". From the above provisions it seems to be clear that the Vice Chancellor is responsible for the conduct of elections held by the University and he has the power to fix the date, place and time of all elections, to prescribe the form of notice, to decide about the validity or invalidity of each ballot paper or of each vote recorded thereon and to declare the result of each election. In fact, he has been conferred sufficient powers for the smooth conduct of all elections and it is he who has to declare the results of each election. 6. If during the process of the election a recounting has to be ordered, it is the Returning Officer who is given powers under Statute 66. Of course, the Vice Chancellor can also assume the powers of the Returning Officer during emergency. The powers thus conferred on the Vice Chancellor under the Statutes are powers which have to be exercised before the declaration of the results of the election. His decision on any question which arises in the course of the election and prior to the declaration of the election is given a finality under Statute 5(1) which says that the decision of the Vice Chancellor on any question relating to the election shall be final. His decision on any question which arises in the course of the election and prior to the declaration of the election is given a finality under Statute 5(1) which says that the decision of the Vice Chancellor on any question relating to the election shall be final. It seems, therefore, clear that Statute 5 (1) applies to all decisions taken by the Vice Chancellor during the course of the election and prior to the declaration of the results of the election. 7. When once the results have been declared, it is Statute 5(2) which applies. When the election is called in question, the election petition has to be filed under Statute 29. The petition has to be in writing. It has to be "forwarded to the Vice-Chancellor with a fee of Rs. 100/2. That petition has to be received by him within seven days of the declaration of the result of the election. It is significant to note that Statute 29 uses the expression 'forward'. In other words, the statute prescribes that it will be the Vice -Chancellor who shall receive an election petition. It could be forwarded to him by the party challenging the election. Statute 29 is thus silent as to whether the Vice-Chancellor is the authority to decide the election petition. 8. When the Vice-Chancellor was intimately involved in the conduct of the election and was responsible for its proper conduct, as seen from the functions assigned to him under Statute 4, rightly the power to decide the dispute was vested in the Chancellor under Statute 5(2). The Chancellor has been expressly given the power to decide whether any person has been duly elected or is entitled to be a member of any authority or body of the University. If such a question arises the Vice-Chancellor is bound "to refer the election petition to the Chancellor" and the decision of the Chancellor is final. 9. I have no doubt, therefore, in my mind that after the election is over when the election is challenged, the Chancellor alone has got jurisdiction to decide whether any person is duly elected or not. 10. In the impugned order, Ext. P5, the reasoning of the Vice Chancellor seems to be that counting is part of the election process and therefore he has got jurisdiction "to pass orders on the validity of the counting done in the election process". 10. In the impugned order, Ext. P5, the reasoning of the Vice Chancellor seems to be that counting is part of the election process and therefore he has got jurisdiction "to pass orders on the validity of the counting done in the election process". I think, the Vice Chancellor has gone wrong in his interpretation of Statute 5(2). Counting during the election process is provided in Statute 4 and recounting before the declaration of the results of the elections is provided in Statute 66. Under Statute 4, be has only the power to fix the date and hour of scrutiny and counting of votes. If a Returning Officer is appointed, it is he who counts the votes. This is clear from Statute 49 also which says that the scrutiny and counting of votes shall be conducted by the Returning Officer. The Vice-Chancellor functions as a Returning Officer only when emergency arises under Statute 4(2). After the election is over and the results have been declared, the authority to decide the election dispute will have to consider independently whether recounting should be ordered The prayer for recounting is not granted in the ordinary course, after the election is over. When once the results are declared, the election ends. The Vice Chancellor becomes functus officio for this purpose. When a dispute is raised by filing an election petition, the Chancellor has to decide that dispute. The Chancellor will have to decide on the merits whether recounting should be ordered especially when recounting was not claimed before the declaration of the results of the election, under Statute 66. The direction for recounting after the declaration in an election dispute is a quasi judicial decision to be rendered by the Chancellor. When the Vice Chancellor held he had the power to direct or refuse recounting, he failed to note that no such power was expressly conferred on him under the Statute. Moreover, he wrongly thought that recounting after the election is a mere mechanical process to be ordered for the mere asking when an election petition is filed. Even after an election dispute, the authority will have to consider according to sound judicial principles whether recounting should be ordered. It is only then that recounting can take place. It is a decision in the course of the hearing of the election petition and not a decision to be taken before the hearing commences. Even after an election dispute, the authority will have to consider according to sound judicial principles whether recounting should be ordered. It is only then that recounting can take place. It is a decision in the course of the hearing of the election petition and not a decision to be taken before the hearing commences. The decision of the Vice Chancellor that he had powers to order recounting after the results have been declared was therefore plainly without jurisdiction. 11. The learned Standing Counsel for the University submitted that under Statute 5(2) it is for the Vice Chancellor to decide whether any dispute arises and if no question arises, there is no necessity to refer the matter to the Chancellor. He invited my attention to a decision under the Kerala Land Reforms Act interpreting S.125 of the Act, George v. Chakkunni (1977 KLT. 865). I think, I need not import the interpretation given to S.125 of Act I of 1964 to understand the content of Statute 5(2). If the contention of the Standing Counsel is accepted, the position will be that the Vice Chancellor will have the jurisdiction (a) to decide whether there should be recounting; (b) to direct recounting and (c) to decide whether the person has been duly elected or not. This is not the object of the Statutes. The Vice Chancellor intimately connected with the election and responsible for its proper conduct has to keep aloof thereafter when a dispute is raised. A dispute arises when an election petition is filed. A decision on the merits of that dispute can thus vest, not in the Vice Chancellor, who was part of the election machinery, but to an outside authority. It is there, that the Statute gives power to the Chancellor. 12. It was vehemently contended that the Chancellor cannot be burdened with the recounting of votes and that is the reason why the power has been conferred on the Vice Chancellor. This contention proceeds on a misapprehension that the Chancellor is bound to order recounting. He has a judicial discretion to order or refuse recounting. If he orders recounting, the physical act of recount can of course be entrusted by the Chancellor to any authority or an officer of the University. There is no extra burden on the Chancellor except the statutory burden of deciding the election dispute. He has a judicial discretion to order or refuse recounting. If he orders recounting, the physical act of recount can of course be entrusted by the Chancellor to any authority or an officer of the University. There is no extra burden on the Chancellor except the statutory burden of deciding the election dispute. Thus the Vice Chancellor has not been given any power expressly or impliedly to order recounting when once the results of the election are declared. 13. As it is the Governor of the State who is appointed the Chancellor, rightly the Statute did not provide that all election petitions should be directly sent to the Chancellor. It is for that reason probably that Statute 29 says that the election petitions shall be forwarded to the Vice-Chancellor and thereafter under Statute 5(2) he is required to "refer" it to the Chancellor. in this view the order of the Vice-Chancellor, Ext. P5, is wrong and clearly without jurisdiction. A writ of certiorari will issue quashing the proceedings, Ext. P5, issued by the Vice-Chancellor. The Vice-Chancellor will refer the election petition filed by the 2nd respondent to the Chancellor as provided in Statute 5(2) of the Kerala University (Conduct of Elections to Various Authorities or Bodies) First Statutes, 1974. The Original Petition is allowed as above. No costs. Issue carbon copy to counsel appearing for the parties on usual terms. Allowed.