SHIVAPRAKASH, J. ( 1 ) IN this Petition the legality and validity of the order dated 28. 11. 1995 passed by the Registrar, bangalore University who is the second respondent is questioned. Under the said order, the second respondent has rejected the application dated 26. 6. 1995 "for renewal of registration" of the petitioner in the Electoral Rolls of Registered Graduates of Bangalore University on the ground that the petitioner did not fulfil the requirements of the relevant Statutes pertaining to the elections to the authorities of the Bangalore University. ( 2 ) THE Petitioner is a sitting member of the Senate of the first respondent University having been elected in March 1992. Subsequently, in June 1992 he was elected by the Senate from amongst its members to the Syndicate in terms of Section 24 (vi) of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976. As on today he continues to be a member of the Syndicate of the first respondent university. ( 3 ) STATUTE No. 12. 03 provides for Registration of Graduates. It consists of two parts. The first part - Statutes 12. 03 (1) to 12. 03 (4) provide for registration of Graduates, and prescribe the procedure and eligibility for registration. The second part - Statute 12. 03 (5) provides for revision of register of Graduates. ( 4 ) FOR a person to be eligible for being registered as a graduate in terms of Statute 12. 03 (1), He has to fulfill three requirements: 1) He has to be a graduate of a University established by law in india or of a deemed University declared by the Central Government by a notification under section 3 of U. G. C. Act, 1956; 2) He has to be a citizen of India; and 3) He has to be residing in the Bangalore University area for a continuous period of not less than two years as on 31st january of the year in which the election is due to take place. ( 5 ) THE Explanation to Section 12. 03 says that in evidence of residence, a certificate duly signed with office seal issued by an M. P/m. L. A/m. LC. ( 5 ) THE Explanation to Section 12. 03 says that in evidence of residence, a certificate duly signed with office seal issued by an M. P/m. L. A/m. LC. or a Gazetted Officer or an officer of the revenue Department not lower in rank than that of a Tahsildar or an affidavit sworn to before a judicial Authority exercising jurisdiction in the Bangalore University area shall be produced and "the Registrar is the competent authority to approve such evidence and registration. " ( 6 ) CLAUSE (2) of Statute 12. 03 provides that the Registrar, in respect of the applications received, shall communicate his decision thereon to each applicant by post within four weeks. An appeal is provided to the Chancellor which has to be preferred by the aggrieved applicant within fifteen days of the receipt of such decision. ( 7 ) CLAUSE (5) of Statute 12. 03 provides for revision of "the Register of Graduates. " It enjoins that "the Register of Graduates" shall be revised every three years on a date to be prescribed by the Vice-Chancellor. Graduates may notify before the prescribed date any information relating to any change of address or demise of any registered Graduate by Registered post or in person and the Registrar is empowered to delete the names of such of the registered Graduates who do not satisfy the requirements Clause (1) (b) of Statute 12. 03 regarding his residence in the University area for a continuous period of not less than two years as on 31st January of the year in which the election is due to take place. ( 8 ) THE above Statutes do not contemplate "renewal of registration". The aforesaid Statutes provide for registration and revision. It does not provide for renewal of registration. The petitioner has stated in the Petition that he made an application on 30. 6. 1995 for registration of his name in the Register of Graduates "under the General Constituency". The Registrar of the bangalore University the first respondent by notice dated 6. 11. 1995, Annexure-B, has called upon the petitioner to produce proof of his residence. The petitioner by his letter dated 13. 11. 1995 requested for ten days time to reply to the said letter. Later the petitioner has through his Advocate sent the reply dated 20. 11. 1995, Annexure-D, stating that he had made "renewal application on 26. 6. 11. 1995, Annexure-B, has called upon the petitioner to produce proof of his residence. The petitioner by his letter dated 13. 11. 1995 requested for ten days time to reply to the said letter. Later the petitioner has through his Advocate sent the reply dated 20. 11. 1995, Annexure-D, stating that he had made "renewal application on 26. 6. 1995 along with the application and certificate of the M. L. A. . . . . . . . " and since the second respondent within four weeks had not communicated his decision thereon, he cannot "rake up the matter. " In the reply the second respondent was asked "to straightaway renew the registration and nothing more than that" The petitioner has also asserted in the said reply notice that he is residing within the jurisdiction of the Bangalore University area and has given certain particulars in support of the same. Subsequently, the second respondent has rejected the application for registration by the impugned order dated 28. 11. 1995, copy of which is marked as annexure-H. ( 9 ) IN the impugned order the second respondent has stated that during the course of revision of the electoral rolls certain persons named in the order gave written complaints to the University objecting to the inclusion of the name of the petitioner in the Electoral Rolls on the following grounds: (1) In the last Senate election held in 1992 when the petitioner got elected he had given his address as No. 38, 7th Cross, Lavelle Road, Bangalore and soon thereafter he notified his change of address to the University as 'hanyal village, Anandur Post, Arakalgud Taluk, Hassan District'. (2) Since the change of address, the petitioner has been claiming as Syndicate member travelling allowances and dearness allowances, whenever he was required to attend the meetings, from hanyal Village, Anandur Post, Arakalagud Taluk, Hassan District, and accordingly he claimed rs. 1600/- every time he attended Syndicate/senate meetings of the University. (3) The petitioner has given permanent address of Kodagu for the purpose of standing for election to Vokkaligara Sangha, a registered Society, and he got elected from Kodagu District to the Executive Committee of the said Sangha. (4) The petitioner also contested for the Legislative Assembly from Arakalagud Taluk, Hassan district by getting himself enrolled as a voter in the Assembly Constituency of Arakalgud. (4) The petitioner also contested for the Legislative Assembly from Arakalagud Taluk, Hassan district by getting himself enrolled as a voter in the Assembly Constituency of Arakalgud. ( 10 ) ON the basis of the aforesaid complaints, the second respondent called upon the petitioner to furnish particulars regarding his residence within the jurisdiction of the Bangalore University area by letter dated 6. 11. 1995, Annexure-B. It was in response to that letter the petitioner sought for ten days time to reply and later got issued the legal notice referred above. After considering the reply sent by the petitioner through his Advocate, the second respondent taking into consideration that the petitioner himself by his letter dated 21. 9. 1992 had notified that 'hanyal village, Anandur Post, Arakalagud Taluk, Hassan District' was his permanent address and has been claiming T. A. and D. A. from Bangalore University from 1992 onwards for attending the monthly meetings of the University Authorities and also taking into consideration that the petitioner had got himself enrolled in the Electoral Rolls of Arakalagud Assembly Constituency and that under the provisions of the Representation of People Act, 1951, a person is entitled to be registered in the Electoral Roll in a particular constituency on the basis of his ordinary residence, has held that the petitioner was not residing continuously for two years in the Bangalore university area, as on 31st January 1995, in which year the election is due to take place and therefore he was not entitled to be on the Rolls of the Registered Graduates of Bangalore university in terms of Statute 12. 03 (b) of the Statutes pertaining to the Elections to the authorities of the Bangalore University. ( 11 ) IN the Statement of Objections of the respondents, while referring to the Statutes which bear on the questions at issue, it is stated that as many as thirty thousand applications had been received for registration and one such application was that of the petitioner and at the time of scrutiny a "joint complaint" was given by five persons on 30. 10. 1995 objecting to the inclusion of the name of the petitioner in the Arakalagud Assembly Constituency, the letter dated 21. 9. 10. 1995 objecting to the inclusion of the name of the petitioner in the Arakalagud Assembly Constituency, the letter dated 21. 9. 1992 written by the petitioner himself giving his change of address, the claim for T. A. and d. A. made by the petitioner for attending the meetings of the Senate and Syndicate are given. It is stated that a total amount of Rs. 34,000/- had been received by him towards T. A. and D. A. between 3. 10. 1992 and 6. 1. 1994. Reference is also made to the certificate issued by the Belur gram Panchayat, Belagund, Somwarpet Hobli, Kodagu District certifying that the petitioner is a resident of Nagarur village within the area of the said Panchayat. Copies of the Electoral Roll of arakalagud Assembly constituency, and the certificate issued by the said Panchayat are produced and marked as Annexure R2 and R5 respectively. ( 12 ) SRI S. Vijayashankar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the letter dated 21. 9. 1992 written by the petitioner to the Vice-Chancellor of the University, copy of which is marked as Annexure-R3, did not indicate any change of residence of the petitioner but only indicated the change of address for purposes of correspondence. Relying on the Ruling of the supreme Court in SMT. JEEWANTI PANDEY vs. KISHAN CHANDRA PANDEY, AIR1982 SC 3 , 1981 (3 )SCALE1641 , (1981 )4 SCC517 , [1982 ]1 scr1003 , 1982 (14 )UJ57 (SC ), the learned Counsel contended that there is no evidence on record regarding the change of residence of the petitioner, for the second respondent to pass the impugned order rejecting the application of the petitioner for registration. The Supreme Court at para 12 of the Judgment has considered the meaning to be attributed to the expression "residence" as follows: "12. In order to give jurisdiction on the ground of 'residence', something more than a temporary stay is required. It must be more or less of a permanent character, and of such a nature that the court in which the respondent is sued, is his natural forum. The word 'reside' is by no means free from all ambiguity and is capable of a variety of meanings according to the circumstances to which it is made applicable and the context in which it is found. The word 'reside' is by no means free from all ambiguity and is capable of a variety of meanings according to the circumstances to which it is made applicable and the context in which it is found. It is capable of being understood in its ordinary sense of having one's own dwelling permanently, as well as in its extended sense. In its ordinary sense 'residence' is more or less of a permanent character. The expression 'resides' means to make an abode for a considerable time; to dwell permanently or for a length of time; to have a settled abode for a time. It is the place where a person has a fixed home or abode. In webster's Dictionary, 'to reside' has been defined as meaning to dwell permanently or for any length of time', and words like 'dwelling place' or 'abode' are held to be synonymous. Where there is such fixed homo or such abode at one place the person cannot be said to reside at any other place where he had gone on a casual or temporary visit, e. g. , for health or business or for a change. If a person lives with his wife and children, in an established home, his legal and actual place of residence is the same. If a person has no established home and is compelled to live in hotels, boarding houses or houses of others, his actual and physical habitation is the place where he actually or personally resides. " ( 13 ) ON the petitioner's own showing he had changed his address soon after election to the Senate in the year 1992 by letter dated 21. 9. 1992. Therefore, the aforesaid Decision will not in any manner assist the case of the petitioner that he had not changed his residence from the Bangalore university area more so in the light of the material on record. ( 14 ) THE Electoral Roll of Arakalagud Assembly Constituency of Hassan District discloses that the petitioner had got himself enrolled as a resident of the said constituency. The certificate dated 13. 10. 1995 issued by the Belur Gram Panchayat, copy of which is marked as Annexure-R5, discloses that the petitioner is a resident of Nagarur Village within the area of the said panchayat. The certificate dated 13. 10. 1995 issued by the Belur Gram Panchayat, copy of which is marked as Annexure-R5, discloses that the petitioner is a resident of Nagarur Village within the area of the said panchayat. The aforesaid documents establish on the face of it that the petitioner was not residing within the Bangalore University area continuously for a period of not less than two years as on 31st January 1995. ( 15 ) THE petitioner in response to the notice dated 6. 11. 1995, Annexure-B, issued by the Registrar of the Bangalore University calling upon him to produce proof of his residence did not produce any evidence whatsoever. On the other hand, he sought for ten days time by his letter dated 13. 11. 1995 as already noticed above. Subsequently, his Advocate sent the reply dated 20. 11. 1995 Annexure-D merely asserting that the petitioner had made an application dated 26. 6. 1995 for "renewal" with a certificate of the M. L. A. , regarding his residence and since the second respondent did not communicate his decision thereon within four weeks he cannot question the eligibility of the petitioner to be enrolled as a Registered Graduate. Copy of the application dated 26. 6. 1995 filed by the petitioner for registration is marked as Annexure-R1 in the Statement of Objections filed by the University. In the said application, the petitioner has given his present address as well as his permanent postal address as No. 38, 7th Cross, Lavelle road, Bangalore-560001. There is no indication in the application when he changed his postal address again from Arakatagud, Hassan District to Bangalore. Regarding his residence, a certificate is issued by the Deputy Registrar of the Bangalore University, Bangalore. In the statement of Objections filed by the University, it is stated that the said officer of the University is not a Gazetted Officer or "a competent authority to issue such a certificate" in terms of the explanation to Statute 12. 03. ( 16 ) WHEN the petitioner made the application for fresh registration under Annexure-R1 dated 26. 6. 1995, he did not produce "a certificate of residence duly signed with office seal issued by an m. P. /m. LA. /m. LC. 03. ( 16 ) WHEN the petitioner made the application for fresh registration under Annexure-R1 dated 26. 6. 1995, he did not produce "a certificate of residence duly signed with office seal issued by an m. P. /m. LA. /m. LC. , or a Gazetted Officer or an Officer of the Revenue Department not lower in rank than that of a Tahsildar or an affidavit sworn to before a competent judicial authority under the jurisdiction of the Bangalore University area. " Therefore the said application was not in conformity with Statute 12. 03 read with the Explanation. In the circumstances of the case, taking into consideration that in response to the notice issued by the second respondent calling upon him to produce material in support of his residence in the Bangalore University area the petitioner did not make any effort to produce the same, it is not open for him now to find fault in the order of the second respondent rejecting his application for registration. ( 17 ) SRI R. N. Narasimha Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents, submitted that the application made by the petitioner, Annexure-R1, is a fresh application for registration in terms of Statute 12. 03. He submitted that against the decision of the Registrar, an appeal lies to the Chancellor and if the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the Registrar the course open for him is to prefer appeal and not to seek relief in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. He submitted that from the conduct of the petitioner and the material relied upon by the second respondent for rejecting his application for registration it is certain that the petitioner was not a resident in the Bangalore University area for a continuous period of not less than two years as on 31st January 1995. The fact that the second respondent did not indicate his decision on the application made by the petitioner within four weeks as provided in Clause (2) of statute 12. 03 would not in any manner impair the decision of the second respondent in rejecting the application of the petitioner. ( 18 ) THE petitioner did not produce any evidence whatsoever regarding his residence in the bangalore University area when he made the application for fresh registration. e. , Annexure-R1. As already noticed there is no provision for renewal of registration. ( 18 ) THE petitioner did not produce any evidence whatsoever regarding his residence in the bangalore University area when he made the application for fresh registration. e. , Annexure-R1. As already noticed there is no provision for renewal of registration. It is clear from the conduct of the petitioner that he had made no effort to establish that he was residing continuously for a period of not less than two years within the Bangalore University area as on 31st January 1995, despite the notice dated 6. 11. 1995, Annexure-B, of the second respondent requiring him to produce evidence of his residence. Therefore, the second respondent was justified in rejecting the application of the petitioner for registration. ( 19 ) I see no merit in this Petition. The Petition is dismissed before issue of Rule.