P. VISHWANATHA SHETTY, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners in these petitions are the Members of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly. In these petitions, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the Notification dated 12th May, 1999, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure A to the extent it notifies that the names of the petitioners will not figure in the electoral roll of the Senate election scheduled on 25th May, 1999. ( 2 ) THE facts leading to this petition are not many and are not in dispute. University other than Medical, Technical and Agricultural in the State are governed by the provisions of The Karnataka Statute Universities Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). Section 20 of the Act provides for the authorities of the University. The Senate, Syndicate, Academic Council, Finance Committee are some of the authorities of the University. Section 21 of the Act provides for the constitution of the Senate. Sub-clause 14 of Section 21 provides that five members of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly elected from amongst themselves would constitute the members of the Senate. Section 23 of the Act provides for the powers and functions of the Senate. Clause (j) of sub-section (2) of Section 23 provides that the Senate shall have the power to elect the members to such authorities as provided under the Act or the Statutes. Section 24 of the Act provides for the constitution of the Syndicate. Sub-clause (vi) of Section 24 of the provides that three persons one of whom being an employee of the University or affiliated college or a representative of the students elected by the Senate from amongst its members to the Syndicate. Section 34 of the Act provides that the method of election of the members to the Senate, Syndicate and Academic Council shall be as prescribed by the Statutes. The University in exercise of the power conferred on it under Sections 35 and 36 has framed the known as "statutes relating to the Elections to the Authorities of the University" providing for the procedure to be followed for the election to the various authorities of the University. The various provisions of the Statutes sets out the procedure for preparation of the electoral rolls, the date of filing of the nomination, withdrawal of nomination papers, conducting of elections correction of electoral rolls etc. The various provisions of the Statutes sets out the procedure for preparation of the electoral rolls, the date of filing of the nomination, withdrawal of nomination papers, conducting of elections correction of electoral rolls etc. ( 3 ) THE University issued a calendar of events by means of Notification dated 26th April, 1999 notifying that the election of three persons of the Syndicate, one member to the Academic Council, and one member to the Finance Committee would be held on 25th May, 1999. In the said notification, the date for filing of the nomination paper, consideration of nomination paper, withdrawal of nomination paper was also notified. The last date for filing of the nomination was 4. 00 p. m. on 11th May, 1999. The Joint Secretary of the Legislative Assembly sent a communication dated 11th May, 1999 to the Registrar of the University by means of a fax message, notifying that the petitioners and one Sri Akki Mahadevappa Sahadevappa were elected as members of the Senate of the University from amongst the members of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly. The said communication was received by the Registrar of the University on 11th May, 1999 at 5. 42 p. m. i. e. , after the time fixed for filing of the nomination papers. The University by means of Notification dated 12th May, 1999 notified that the petitioners and the aforesaid Akki Mahadevappa Sahadevappa were elected from amongst the members of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly as members of the Senate under Clause 14 of sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act. Subsequently, a meeting notice dated 12th May, 1999 was also issued to the petitioners intimating them to attend the said meeting of the Senate fixed on 25th May, 1999. But, in the said notice the petitioners were informed that they are not entitled to participate in the election to the authorities of the University fixed on 25th May, 1999. The said action was called in question by the petitioners in this petition. On 24th May, 1999, I had granted an interim order permitting the petitioners to participate in the election and further directed the Returning Officer to keep the votes cast by the petitioners separately. Accordingly , they were permitted to participate and vote in the election and their votes were kept separately. On 24th May, 1999, I had granted an interim order permitting the petitioners to participate in the election and further directed the Returning Officer to keep the votes cast by the petitioners separately. Accordingly , they were permitted to participate and vote in the election and their votes were kept separately. However, since out of the two candidates contesting for the Academic Council, one candidate had withdrawn, the election to the Academic Council was unanimous. ( 4 ) SRI J. S. Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in support of the prayer of the petitioners that they were entitled to participate and vote in the election held to the various authorities of the University on 25th May, 1999 made three submissions. Firstly, he submitted that since the petitioners had admittedly become the members of the Senate in terms of the Notification dated 12th May, 1999, issued by the University, it was not permissible for the respondents to prevent them from participating and voting in the elections fixed on 25th May, 1999. According to him, all persons who are Senators on the date of the election to the various authorities of the University are entitled to vote and participate in the election. It is his submission that while sub-section 2 (j) of Section 23 of the Act confers power on the members of the Senate to do various acts, the said power is one coupled with duty to elect members to the authorities of the University from amongst the members of the Senate and therefore, the petitioners cannot be prevented from exercising their power to elect members to the Syndicate, Academic Council, Finance Committee and other authorities of the University on the ground that the electoral rolls can be corrected or altered only before the last date fixed for receipt of nomination papers and not thereafter. Further, he submitted that as a matter of fact there was no electoral rolls of the members of the Senate prepared by the University at any time. It is his submission that the Notification dated 9th April, 1999 only notifies as to who were the members of the Senate as on the date of the issue of the said notification. Further, he submitted that as a matter of fact there was no electoral rolls of the members of the Senate prepared by the University at any time. It is his submission that the Notification dated 9th April, 1999 only notifies as to who were the members of the Senate as on the date of the issue of the said notification. He also pointed out that after the petitioners were notified as members of the Senate, a subsequent notification also came to be issued including their names as members of the Senate, and the provision in the Statute does not provide for maintenance of electoral rolls with regard to the authorities of the University like the Senate. Syndicate, Academic Council etc. In this connection, relying upon clause 2 of Statute 17 of the Statute, the learned counsel pointed out that the said provisions contemplated that all members present x x x x x x x x x x at the meeting are required to vote and they are only required to sign in the nominal electoral roll kept for the purpose as a record of voting at the election. ( 5 ) SECONDLY, he submitted that so far as the members of the Senate, Syndicate and Academic Council and other authorities of the University are concerned, the question of preparing electoral rolls does not arise for consideration as they become members of the authorities by virtue of the provisions contained in the Act. It is his submission that it is only in the case of Constituencies of registered graduates in various faculties provided under Clauses 1 to 9 of Statute 4 of the University, the electoral roll is required to be prepared and maintained. Lastly, he submitted that admittedly the petitioners were elected as members of the Senate before the last date fixed for filing of the nominations and the same was communicated to the University by means of a fax message on 11th May, 1999 at 5. 42 p. m. and therefore, the respondents ought to have included the name of the petitioners in the electoral rolls of the Senate, even if it is to be held that the University is required to maintain the electoral rolls of members of the Senate. 42 p. m. and therefore, the respondents ought to have included the name of the petitioners in the electoral rolls of the Senate, even if it is to be held that the University is required to maintain the electoral rolls of members of the Senate. According to him, the Vice-Chancellor of the University in terms of Statute 6 of the University was under a statutory obligation to get the electoral rolls corrected till 12. 00 midnight on 11th May, 1999. Therefore, he submits that the Notification Annexure A to the extent it is impugned in these petitions is liable to be quashed and the votes cast by the petitioners by virtue of the interim order granted by this Court on 24th May, 1999 is required to be counted by the University and on that basis results of the election is required to be declared. ( 6 ) HOWEVER, Sri N. B. Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the respondents resisted every one of the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. He pointed out that the University received the communication notifying that the petitioners were elected to the Senate of the University only after the last date fixed for filing of nominations i. e, 11th May, 1999 and therefore, the University was fully justified in notifying in Annexure A that the petitioners were not entitled to vote in the election. Relying upon Section 34 of the Act, he pointed out that the University is bound by the provisions contained in the Statute while holding the election to the authorities of the University. According to him, Statute 4 of the Statutes provides for preparation of and maintenance of electoral rolls of the University and the notification issued by the University on 9th April, 1999 must be understood in the backdrop of the election notified by the University as the electoral rolls prepared by the University, which as a matter of fact, the University has treated as such; and since the fax message intimating the University that the petitioners were elected as members of the Senate was received by the University after the last date fixed for receipt of the nominations, the University could not include the name of the petitioners in the electoral rolls and permit them to vote in the election. He submits that the Vice-Chancellor of the University is bound to give effect to the provisions of Statute 6 of the Statutes which only empowers him to carry out corrections in the electoral rolls if any correction required to be made is brought to his notice "before the last date fixed for receipt of nominations". He further submitted that the decision was taken by the respondents keeping in mind the purity of the elections and in bona fide exercise of the power conferred on the respondents while interpreting the provisions of the Act and the Statutes framed thereunder. Sri Bhat further submitted that Statute 4 of the Statutes consists of two parts; and the first part contemplates preparation and maintenance of electoral rolls of all bodies including the authorities of the University, and the second part is only illustrative in nature which specifically provides for preparation of electoral rolls to various bodies provided under Clauses (i) to (ix) of Statute 4; and therefore, there is no merit in the contention of Sri Shetty that in the case of members of the authorities of the University like Senate and Syndicate, the University is not required to prepare the electoral rolls. ( 7 ) IN the light of the rival contentions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the only question that would arise for my consideration in these petitions is as to whether the petitioners were entitled to participate and vote in the elections held to the Syndicate and Finance Committee of the University on 25th May, 1999? ( 8 ) NOW, let me examine each of the contentions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. The first question is, since the petitioners were notified as members of the Senate by means of Notification dated 12th May, 1999, whether the petitioners were entitled to vote and participate in the election. As noticed by me earlier, Section 23 of the Act relied upon by Sri Shetty provides for the powers and functions of the Senate. Clause (j) of sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the Act confers power on the Senate to elect members to the authorities of the University as provided in the Act or the Statute. Sub-section (vi) of Section 24 of the Act as noticed by me earlier, provides for election of three persons to the Syndicate elected by the Senate from amongst its members. Sub-section (vi) of Section 24 of the Act as noticed by me earlier, provides for election of three persons to the Syndicate elected by the Senate from amongst its members. Sub-clause (iii) of Section 26 provides for election of any one member to the Senate elected by its members to the Academic Council. Sub-clause (iii) of sub-section (1) of Section 30 provides for election of one member to the Finance Committee from amongst the members of the Senate elected by them. Therefore, it is clear that power is conferred on the Senate to elect three members of the Syndicate in terms of Clause (j) of sub-section (2) of Section 23; and one member to the Academic Council in terms of sub-clause (iii) of Section 26, one member to the Finance Committee in terms of sub-clause (iii) of sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. No doubt, Section 34 of the Act provides that the election to the authorities of the University shall be held as prescribed under the Statute. The various provisions in the Statute prescribes the procedure for the election to the authorities of the University. If there is any conflict between the provisions of the Act and the Statute, it is well settled that the provisions in the Act will prevail over the provisions in the Statute framed by the University. The message dated 11th May, 1999, a copy of which was has been produced as Annexure R2 along with the statement of objections filed by the University shows that the petitioners and one Sri Akki Mahadevappa Sahadevappa were elected as members of the Senate; and the University on 12th May, 1999 notified that the petitioners and Sri Akki Mahadevappa Sahadevappa had become members of the Senate in terms of sub-clause (14) of sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act. The Notification Annexure A and the meeting notice issued to the petitioners clearly shows that the University has recognised them as members of the Senate long prior to the date of the election to the Syndicate, Academic Council and the Finance Committee of the University. Therefore, on the date of the election when they were admittedly members of the Senate, in my considered view, they were entitled to participate and vote in the election. Therefore, on the date of the election when they were admittedly members of the Senate, in my considered view, they were entitled to participate and vote in the election. They cannot be denied of their right to vote in the election on the sole ground that their name was not included in the electoral roll prepared prior to the last date fixed for receipt of nomination papers; and on the ground that Statute 6 of the Statute prohibits the Vice Chancellor of the University to carry out the corrections in electoral rolls after the last date fixed for receipt of nomination papers. The substantive right to participate and vote in the election by virtue of the petitioners having become members of the Senate cannot be taken away on the ground that the Vice Chancellor has no power to alter the electoral rolls after the last date fixed for receipt of nominations and he could carry out necessary corrections only when it is brought to his notice before the last date fixed for receipt of nominations. The power conferred on the members of the Senate to elect members to the Syndicate and other authorities of the University by virtue of the provisions contained in Sections 24 (vi), 26 (iii) and 30 (iii) of the Act cannot be whittled down or denied by virtue of Statute 6 of the Statutes which provides that no correction shall be made to the electoral rolls. In my view, the provisions contained in Statute 6 must be read down and held that it will not apply in the case of members who are authorities of the University, even if it is to be held that in the case of the members of the authorities, the electoral roll is required to be prepared. If it is so held there is no conflict between the provisions of the Act and the Statute framed by the University as contended by Sri Bhat. If it is so held there is no conflict between the provisions of the Act and the Statute framed by the University as contended by Sri Bhat. Statute 5 of the Statutes on which strong reliance is placed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners provides that election of three persons by the Senate to the Syndicate should be held at the meeting of the Senate in terms of sub-clause (6) of Section 24 (vi) of the Act; one Member of the Senate to the Academic Council in terms of Section 26 (iii) and one member of the Senate to the Finance Committee in terms of the Section 30 (iii) of the Act. This provision clearly supports the view that all the members of the Senate on the date of election are entitled to vote and elect their representatives to the various authorities of the University. In the light of the above discussion, I am unable to accept the submission of Shri Bhat that since the validity of Statute 6 has not been called in question, and so long as the said provision remains in the Statute, the petitioners who have become members of the Senate after the last date fixed for receipt of the nomination papers are not entitled to vote. It is relevant to point out that in the absence of either a specific bar in the Act or the provision which impliedly takes away the right of such a Member of the Senate to vote in the election, the University cannot lightly take away the right of the member of the Senate to elect their representatives to the various authorities of the University. Therefore, since on the date of the election i. e. on 25th May, 1999, admittedly the petitioners were members of the Senate, in my view, they were entitled to participate and vote in the election. ( 9 ) NOW, the next question that would arise for consideration is whether the provisions of Statute 4 of the Statutes would apply in the case of members of the authorities of the University. This question is required to be decided on the basis of the interpretation to be placed on the Statute in the backdrop of the provisions in the Act which spells out the powers and duties of the members of the Senate and the other authorities of the Senate. This question is required to be decided on the basis of the interpretation to be placed on the Statute in the backdrop of the provisions in the Act which spells out the powers and duties of the members of the Senate and the other authorities of the Senate. In my view, Statute 4 on which strong reliance is placed by Sri Bhat, does not provide for preparation of electoral rolls of the members of the authorities of the University. In this connection, it is useful to extract Statute 4 of the Statutes which reads as hereunder :"st. 4 : Maintenance of Electoral Rolls :1. The Registrar shall maintain the electoral rolls of all the persons and bodies entitled to elect members to the authorities of the University showing the names and address, age, sex and degrees, of all persons and names of bodies qualified to vote. Separate electoral rolls shall be maintained in respect of each of the following constituencies; (i) Constituency of Registered Graduates in Law (S. 21 (1) (20) (a); (ii) Constituency of Registered Graduates in Engineering (S. 21 (1) (20) (b); (iii) Constituency of Registered Graduates in Commerce (S. 21 (1) (20) (c); (iv) Constituency of Registered Graduates in Medicine (S. 21 (1) (20) (d); (v) Constituency of Registered Graduates other than those specified in clauses (i) to (iv) above, (S. 21 (1) (20) (e); (vi) Combined constituency of all Registered Graduates for the election of one woman Registered Graduate. (S. 21 (1) (21 ). " (vii) Constituency of teachers other than principals. Professors and Directors in Post Graduate Departments (S. 21 (1) (18); (viii) Constituency of Professors and Directors in the Post Graduate Department from each faculty (S. 21 (1) (19); and (ix) Constituency of t eachers who are not Deans of Faculties or Heads of Post-Graduate Departments of studies or Principals of Colleges (S. 26 (vii));2. All teachers shall be entitled to be registered in the electoral roll for the respective constituency. In order to enable the Registrar to maintain the electoral rolls corrected up-to-date the Principal of every Colleges shall immediately inform the Registrar about every change in the teachership of that college and the Registrar, shall, on receipt of the information, strike off from the electoral roll the names of persons who have ceased to be and include therein the names of persons who have become teachers of that college. The Registrar shall sou motu register in the respective electoral rolls the names of the teachers who are employees of the University and make necessary changes as and when teachers are appointed by the University or cease to be such teachers. "the first portion of the Statute on which reliance is placed by Sri Bhat in my view does not provide for preparation of electoral rolls of the members of the authorities of the University. This is clear from the language employed in the Statute wherein it is provided that "the Registrar shall maintain the electoral rolls of thepersonsand bodies entitle to elect the members of the authorities of the University. " Therefore, what is required to be prepared by the Registrar of the University is electoral rolls of all the persons and bodies entitled to elect members to the authorities of the University. No doubt, the Syndicate is an authority of the University. However, in the context the said provision must be understood as, if an authority like the Senate is electing member to the Syndicate, Academic Council of Finance Committee or other authorities of the University, the electoral rolls of the authorities like the Senate is not required to be prepared by the Registrar in terms of Clause 4 of the Statute, because the members of the Senate by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 21 of the Act statutorily become members of the Senate. In this case, the question of their making an application to register them as voters etc. does not arise. This is so even in case of other authorities. This is clear from the scheme of the various provisions mentioned in Chapter IV of the Act. Section 24 (vi) of the Act empowers and casts an obligation on the members of the Senate to elect amongst them the members to the Syndicate. This is further made clear in the latter portion of Statute 4 which specifically provides for preparation of electoral rolls in favour of various categories provided under Clauses (i) to (xi) of the Act. In the light of the above understanding of provisions of the Act, I am unable to appreciate the contention of Sri Bhat strongly urged that the said provision is only illustrative in nature. ( 10 ) THEREFORE, I am of the view that the second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner also merits acceptance. In the light of the above understanding of provisions of the Act, I am unable to appreciate the contention of Sri Bhat strongly urged that the said provision is only illustrative in nature. ( 10 ) THEREFORE, I am of the view that the second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner also merits acceptance. Therefore, in the light of the above view, I am unable to accept the submission of Sri Bhat that since the Registrar of the University had notified the electoral rolls on 9th April, 1999; and since the name of the petitioners and Sri Akki Mahadevappa Sahadevappa was communicated to the University not "before the last date fixed for the receipt of nominations", the Vice-Chancellor of the University could not modify the electoral roll. ( 11 ) FURTHER, the light of the above conclusion, I am also of the view that it is not necessary to consider the last submission of Sri Shetty that the Vice Chancellor is entitled to carry out the corrections in the electoral rolls till 12. 00 midnight of the last date fixed for filing of nomination. ( 12 ) IN the light of the above discussion, I make the following order: (i) It is declared that all the Members of the Legislative Assembly who were constituted as Members of the Senate by means of Notification dated 12th May, 1999 were entitled to participate and vote in the election held to the authorities of the University and the direction given in Notification Annexure A of the extent it prevented them from participating and voting in the election is declared as illegal. (ii) Since by virtue of the interim order granted by this Court, the petitioners were allowed to participate and vote in the election held on 25th May, 1999, the Returning Officer of the University is directed to count their votes after mixing their votes with the votes of other members of the Senate and declare the results of the election. ( 13 ) IN terms stated above, these petitions are allowed and disposed of. Rule is issued and made absolute. --- *** --- .