Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 316 (KER)

Jayakumar v. University of Kerala

2000-06-21

C.S.RAJAN

body2000
Judgment :- C.S. Rajan, J. The petitioner is an unsuccessful candidate in the election to the Senate of the Kerala University from the graduate constituency. He filed Ext. P3 election petition before the first respondent under S.29 of the Kerala University (Conduct of Election to Various Authorities or bodies ) First Statutes, 1974. The prayer in Ext. P3 was to declare that the result of the election to the Senate by the registered graduates declared on 8.10.1999 as null and void. By Ext. P7 the first respondent, who is the Chancellor of the University dismissed the election petition. The ground on which the election petition was dismissed is that the candidates who were elected to the Senate from the graduate constituency were not made parties to the election petition. 2. The argument of the petitioner before the first respondent was that at neither S.77 of the Kerala University Act, 1974 nor the Kerala University (Conduct of Election to Various Authorities or bodies ) First Statutes, 1974 provides for impleadment of candidates who were elected as parties to the election petition. It was further argued that the provisions contained in the Representation of the Peoples Act cannot be looked into for holding that the candidates elected are necessary and proper parties to an election petition. The first respondent rightly upheld the salutory principle of natural justice that nobody shall be condemned unheard. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext. P7 is illegal and is liable to be interferred by this Court. It was further argued that the first respondent ought to have given the petitioner an opportunity to implead the necessary and proper parties and the dismissal of the petition without giving such an opportunity is bad in law. A further request was made to give him an opportunity to implead those elected persons in this Original Petition. 4. I am not impressed by these arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner's argument that neither the University Act nor the Kerala University (Conduct of Elections to Various Authorities or bodies ) First Statutes, 1974 governing the elections provides for impleadment of the elected candidates in an election petition is devoid of any merit. The prayer of the petitioner in the election petition is to set aside the election to the Senate from the graduate constituency. The prayer of the petitioner in the election petition is to set aside the election to the Senate from the graduate constituency. Even, according to the petitioner, 20 candidates were elected from the above constituency. Thus, if the election petition filed by the petitioner is allowed, the result will be that 20 candidates elected will be losing their seats in the Senate. The adverse impact of the result of the election petition will definitely deprive the elected candidates of their valuable seats in the Senate of Kerala University. Thus, the persons who were elected are not given any opportunity to contest and defend their election to the Senate. If such a course is adopted by the first respondent, definitely it will be a negation of justice and in gross violation of the cardinal principles of natural justice. It is always held by the Courts that one has to read the principles of natural justice, which is part of Art.14 of the Constitution of India into all the Statutes. Application of principles of natural justice can be excluded by explicit words or by implication. Therefore, there is no escape for the petitioner from the position that the non-impleadment of the elected candidates to the Senate is fatal to his petition. There is also no justification for the petitioner not to implead the elected candidates when he challenges their election. For that purpose there is no necessity to offer any opportunity to him to implead the candidates. I am in full agreement with the reasoning of the first respondent stated in Ext. P1 to dismiss the election petition. No purpose will be served in allowing the petitioner to implead the elected candidates in this Original Petition also. This court cannot quash Ext. P7 on some grounds known to law if the petitioner wants to succeed in this Original Petition. The reasoning that non-impleadment of elected candidates is fatal cannot be undone by this Court even if the elected candidates are made parties to this Original Petition. Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that Ext. P7 is quite valid and justified. The Original Petition is therefore, dismissed.