Judgment :- 1. 'Senate' has its historic charisma. Its fortunes, no doubt, bad fluctuated from time to time. In ancient Rome it formed a part of the administrative and legislative machinery. Some emperors like Augustus tried to work with the Senate, but others who came subsequent to him, were neither as careful nor as clever. The Senate of that period later withered in importance and use, until it became merely an ornament. Senators too had responsible and onerous duties. They were not allowed officially to engage in commercial ventures; could leave the country only for definite reasons and for short spalls; and had their distinction recognised by the reservation in theatres and other places. 2. The Calicut University also has a Senate. Its composition and functioning are all statutorily regulated under the Act under which the University itself was born, the Calicut University Act, 1975. S.17 of the Act enumerates the ex-officio and elected members. It is unnecessary to dive into the details of that section. It is sufficient to note that under Clause.12 of that Section, the members of the General Council of the University Union, could elect 10 members from among full-time students, subject to the reservation for four categories. Announcing the election to be conducted on 8-7-1986, and inviting nominations from eligible candidates, the University issued a notification on 3-6-1986. The petitioner filed bis nomination. The Returning Officer rejected the nomination. The reason given was that the candidate did not strike off a portion in the nomination paper under the heading "Consent of the Candidate" which reads: "I declare that I am not already a member of the Senate of the University of Calicut/ I am already a member of the Senate and my term of Office as such will expire before the membership for which I am seeking election takes effect." The asterisk was meant to give a direction: "Strike off whichever is not applicable." The petitioner struck off the words: "I am already a member of the Senate," Logically, the remaining portion of the sentence also could be, and could have been, struck off. The petitioner did not choose to do so. 3. There cannot be any doubt that the declaration was not in any way ambiguous due to two significant and striking features: (1) It started with the declaration that he was not a member of the Senate. The petitioner did not choose to do so. 3. There cannot be any doubt that the declaration was not in any way ambiguous due to two significant and striking features: (1) It started with the declaration that he was not a member of the Senate. (2) That portion in the alternative sentence reading: "I am already a member of the Senate" was struck off. The Returning Officer took the view that since the pen which struck off the words "I am already a member of the Senate" did not traverse the full length of the sentence, toe nomination was liable to be rejected. That view is in challenge before this Court. 4. The election in question is governed by the Calicut University (Conduct of Elections to various Authorities or Bodies) First Statutes 1975. R.35 is particularly relevant. It is better that it is reproduced in its entirety inasmuch as reliance was placed on that clause, by the University: "35. Presentation of nomination paper and requirements for a valid nomination:-(1) On or before the date appointed under Statute 34, each candidate shall either in person or by his proposer between the hours of eleven O'clock in the forenoon and 3 O'clock in the afternoon deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in (his behalf in the notification issued under Statute 34, a nomination paper in the prescribed form, which shall, on application, be supplied free of cost by the Returning Officer to any elector whose name is in the electoral roll: Provided that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the Returning Officer on a pay which is a holiday. (2) Every nomination paper shall be proposed by an elector whose name is in the electoral roll and seconded by another elector of the concerned constituency with his signature, The candidate shall sign a declaration on it expressing his willingness to serve on the University authority or body as the case may be, if elected. He shall also make a statement to the effect that he is not already a member of such authority or body or if he is already a member in such capacity, his term of office would expire before the membership for which he is seeking election takes effect. He shall also make a statement to the effect that he is not already a member of such authority or body or if he is already a member in such capacity, his term of office would expire before the membership for which he is seeking election takes effect. The nomination paper shall reach the Returning Officer within the date and hour fixed, which shall not be earlier than 14 clear days after the date of publication of the notification in the news papers." 5. In the present case, there is no demur that the nomination paper was in the prescribed form or that it had not been duly delivered to the Returning Officer. Nor was there any complaint that the nomination was unaccompanied by a proper proposer or a seconder. The petitioner had complied with the direction relating to the signing of declaration and about his willingness to serve the University on his election. The clause further directs that the candidate "shall also make a statement to the effect that he is not already a member of such authority or body or if he is already a member in such capacity, his term of office would expire before the membership for which he is seeking election takes effect." The rejection of a nomination is dealt with in Clause.37. It reads: "37. Decisions of the Returning Officer on objections. The Returning Officer shall then examine the nomination papers and decide all objections which may be made at the time to any nomination and may, either on such objection, or on his own motion, after such summary enquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, reject any nomination, on any of the following grounds: (a) that the candidate is ineligible for election under sub-s. (1) of S.33 of the Ordinance, subject to the exceptions mentioned therein; (b) that the seconder is a person whose name is not registered in the electoral roll; (c) that the signature of the candidate or seconder is not genuine or has been obtained by fraud. The decision of the Returning Officer shall, in each case, be endorsed by him on the nomination paper in respect of which such decision is given." It is conceded that none of the three conditions warranting a rejection of the nomination exist in the present case. 6. The decision of the Returning Officer shall, in each case, be endorsed by him on the nomination paper in respect of which such decision is given." It is conceded that none of the three conditions warranting a rejection of the nomination exist in the present case. 6. Is the rejection of the nomination paper justified merely for the omission to strike off a portion of a sentence contained in the nomination paper? This is the controversy requiring resolution in the case. 7. On a consideration of the statutory background and the scheme, I have no doubt that the rejection of the nomination was unsustainable. It is not as though the law making authority did not apply its mind to the contingencies in which a nomination would have been rejected. Having bestowed due attention on such matters, the grounds of rejection of the nomination have been enumerated and clearly expressed. Clause.37 is exhaustive in relation to the grounds of rejection of nomination. 8. Even the general background of the Election Law and the election process, would indicate that the submission of a nomination, the scrutiny thereof, and the rejection of nomination, are distinct and different facets of the election process. The basic understanding, on this aspect, is perhaps clearly expressed by Scholfield when he states: "A nomination must not be rejected for any reason other than those specified in R.9 of the Local Elections Rules." (See Local Government Elections by A. Norman Scholfield, Third Edition Introduction xxxv.) The relevant portion of R.9 reads: "9 (2). The returning officer shall be entitled to hold a nomination paper invalid only on one of the following grounds, that is to say: ' (a) that the particulars of the candidate or the persons subscribing the paper are not as required by law; or (b) that the paper is not subscribed as so required." 9. The approach, observations and discussions contained in the celebrated election case, Pritchard v. Mayor, & C., of Sangar, (1888 Appeal Cases 241 decided by the House of Lords) and in Watson and Others v. Avton, ((1946) 1 K.B. 297), do give guidance in understanding the problem and attempting a solution thereto. 10. The approach, observations and discussions contained in the celebrated election case, Pritchard v. Mayor, & C., of Sangar, (1888 Appeal Cases 241 decided by the House of Lords) and in Watson and Others v. Avton, ((1946) 1 K.B. 297), do give guidance in understanding the problem and attempting a solution thereto. 10. In Pritchard case supra, Lord Halsbury emphasised that the function of the Returning Officer "is to do and only to do that which the statute prescribes." Lord Herschell was categoric in his conclusion "that the returning officer has no functions beyond those which are defined by the Ballot Act." Hellett J. in the later case emphasised how the Returning Officer "is limited to an inquiry into the validity of the nomination paper having regard to the provisions of the schedule." When the ground of action was one which could not be found in the schedule, the action was invalidated. Adopting that approach which with its forceful logic has commended for acceptance, I am of the view that it is impermissible for this Court to add to the specific grounds for disqualification made mention of in statute No 37. It is not as if the grounds of disqualification had been left to be inferred by a general examination of the various provisions. They have been pointedly and category wise dealt with and enumerated by a specific provision in that behalf. In such circumstances, no authority can supplement the grounds of such enumerated heads of disqualification. 11. In view of the above conclusion, the action of the Registrar in rejecting the nomination paper, and the affirmation of the illegal action by the Vice-Chancellor, have to be quashed. I do so. 12. Counsel for the respondents raised a question of existence of alternate remedies. That is no bar for this Court to decide the matter. The question is one on which it is better to have an authoritative decision of this Court. The slow process of statutory remedy being exhausted will only impede the progress of the election procedure. That is not conducive to the larger interest of the University itself. The University Authorities have already expressed their stand and decision on the question. It will be an unnecessary formality in such circumstance to defer decision on the crucial point arising for consideration in the writ petition. That is not conducive to the larger interest of the University itself. The University Authorities have already expressed their stand and decision on the question. It will be an unnecessary formality in such circumstance to defer decision on the crucial point arising for consideration in the writ petition. In areas where clarity and authority are called for in the understanding of general statutory provisions, it is better that the consideration of such an issue is not dragged on in the slow proceedings before other authorities, as, the final decision has to b3 ultimately rendered by this Court itself. This circumstance also has persuaded me in repelling the jejune ground of alternate remedy raised as a defence to the maintainability of the writ petition. 13. In the light of the above discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The action of the respondents in rejecting the nomination paper of the petitioner is declared as illegal and unenforceable. The election will proceed treating the petitioner as having submitted a valid nomination. I direct the parties to bear their respective costs. Allowed.