JUDGMENT : 1. By this writ petition, a challenge has been made to the order dated 08.02.2018 passed by the Registrar of respondent-University cancelling the election of the representative of the University in the Dental Council of India. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per Section 5 of the Dentist Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1948'), the Registrar of University has no competence to cancel the election. In case of dispute, the matter needs to be referred to the Central Government for its decision and in that case, the decision of the Government would be final. In view of above, the impugned order has been passed by the incompetent authority thus, on that ground itself, it deserves to be set aside. 3. Referring to the facts of this case, learned counsel for the petitioner submits a schedule of election was announced by the respondent-University. The date of submission of nomination, its withdrawal and finally the date of declaration of result was given. The notification issued for it makes specific reference of Section 3(d) of the Act of 1948 regarding election of the representative of the University in the Dental Council of India. As per the schedule of election, the result was to be declared on 23.09.2017 at 05.00 pm. The respondent-University adhered to the schedule of election and accordingly after completion of process of the election, the votes were counted on 23.09.2017. The petitioner could get 27 votes out of 49 and the other candidates could get 22 votes. In view of above, even the counting took place but the respondent-University, for reasons best known to them, did not declare formal result. It was withheld going contrary to the programme of election, which was conducted under the University Code. Accordingly, it is not only that cancellation of election is illegal, as the order for it has been passed by the Incompetent Officer but even withholding the result by the University is also illegal. The University should be commanded with a direction to declare the result as the counting took place on 23.09.2017 itself. 4. Accordingly, it is not only that cancellation of election is illegal, as the order for it has been passed by the Incompetent Officer but even withholding the result by the University is also illegal. The University should be commanded with a direction to declare the result as the counting took place on 23.09.2017 itself. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made a reference of Annexure 14 dated 04.12.2017 to show that there was no complaint in regard to the election till 23.09.2017, as such, there was no occasion for the University to refer the dispute to the Central Government, as envisaged under Section 5 of the Act of 1948. The document at Annexure 14 shows date of complaint to be dated 12.10.2017 on which a Committee was constituted on 25.10.2017. On the day of declaration of result i.e. 23.09.2017, there was no dispute before the University thus even for the aforesaid reason, Section 5 of the Act of 1948 could not have been invoked by the respondents. The prayer is to allow the writ petition with the grant of relief. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the University has contested the writ petition. He submits that after passing of the impugned order, much water has flown. The University has referred the dispute to the Dental Council of India for its reference to the Central Government. In the light of the aforesaid, the interference in the order impugned herein may not be made or if at all it is set aside, the subsequent proceedings may not be effected as the final decision would now be taken by the Central Government, as provided under Section 5 of the Act of 1948, as a reference of a dispute has been sent to Central Government also. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the University has given brief facts of the case to show that a dispute over the election came before it. It was regarding the eligibility of the petitioner to contest the election. Two Members' Committee was constituted to look into the matter and submit report. After a report, the matter was referred to the Dental Council of India and also to the Central Government. The prayer is accordingly to dismiss the petition. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. It was regarding the eligibility of the petitioner to contest the election. Two Members' Committee was constituted to look into the matter and submit report. After a report, the matter was referred to the Dental Council of India and also to the Central Government. The prayer is accordingly to dismiss the petition. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 4 i.e. Dental Council of India submits that they have not received any complaint/dispute and otherwise whenever dispute over the election is raised, it has to be referred to the Central Government and not to the Dental Council of India. 8. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 6 has supported the argument raised by learned counsel for the respondent-University. In addition to the argument of respondent-University, it is stated that a complaint about the eligibility of the petitioner was raised during the course of election itself and on the aforesaid, the impugned order was passed. The prayer is accordingly not to cause interference in the order impugned herein or if at all it is set aside, not in reference of dispute to the Central Government. It is further submitted that even if the prayer made in the writ petition is granted, he may be given liberty to challenge the election. 9. Learned standing counsel as well as counsel for the Union of India have jointly stated that they are not concerned with the issue. 10. We have pondered upon the arguments raised by the representative of the parties and scrutinized the matter carefully. 11. The order dated 08.02.2018 has been challenged on many grounds. The first ground is about the competence of the Registrar of the University to cancel the elections, which were conducted to seek representation of the University in Dental Council of India, as envisaged under Section 3(d) of the Act of 1948. It has not been disputed the Registrar of the University is not competent to cancel the election. Section 5 of the Act of 1948 gives power to the University to refer the dispute to the Central Government but they cannot cancel it. For ready reference, Section 5 of the Act of 1948 is quoted hereinbelow:- "5. Elections under this Chapter shall be conducted in the prescribed manner, and where any dispute arises regarding any such election, it shall be referred to the Central Government whose decision shall be final." 12. For ready reference, Section 5 of the Act of 1948 is quoted hereinbelow:- "5. Elections under this Chapter shall be conducted in the prescribed manner, and where any dispute arises regarding any such election, it shall be referred to the Central Government whose decision shall be final." 12. The provision quoted above shows that if a dispute pertaining to the election arises, it shall be referred to the Central Government. In view of the aforesaid provision, the Registrar of the University was not competent to cancel the election and accordingly the impugned order can be quashed on the aforesaid ground itself. 13. We are, however, required to look into the other aspect of the matter. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made reference of the election programme given at Annexure 11 to the writ petition. The perusal of the election programme shows date of declaration of result. For ready reference, the election programme is quoted hereunder: 15. It is not in dispute that election programme was undertaken by the University on the scheduled dates. It is also not in dispute that on 23.09.2017, the result was to be declared. It is however a fact that the result was not formally declared though counting took place where the petitioner is said to have remain successful. 16. The aforesaid issue is relevant for the reason that till the date of declaration of result i.e. 23.09.2017, no complaint about the election was received by the University. Perusal of Annexure 14 reveals a complaint dated 12.10.2017, which is much subsequent to the date of declaration of result. 17. Learned counsel appearing for the University could not explain as to why the result was withheld till receipt of the complaint when it was to be declared on 23.09.2017. They could not show any provision empowering them to withheld the result, once the election commenced, as per the schedule given by them. In view of the above, an inference can be drawn against the University for undue advantage to other party by going against the statutory provisions or send a representation of their choice. The adverse remarks against the Officer who has passed the impugned order could have been made but he is not party in person to the litigation. Thus, we are refraining ourselves to make adverse remark against the Registrar or the Vice-chancellor. The adverse remarks against the Officer who has passed the impugned order could have been made but he is not party in person to the litigation. Thus, we are refraining ourselves to make adverse remark against the Registrar or the Vice-chancellor. The facts on record shows that till the date of declaration of result i.e. 23.09.2017, no complaint was received by the respondent-University. 18. At this stage, we may refer the argument of learned counsel for the respondent no. 6, who stated that complaint was given on the date of declaration of result itself. The argument aforesaid has been raised orally. It is not supported by any of the document and otherwise goes against the document at Annexure 14, where the only complaint received by the University was on 12.10.2017 and not prior to that. 19. Accordingly, we cannot accept the oral statement of learned counsel for respondent no. 6 going contrary to the document. In view of the facts given above, what we find is that non-declaration of the result of the election is wholly illegal. It should have been declared on 23.09.2017 and in case of a dispute thereupon, could have referred to the Central Government but not in the manner it is done in this case. 20. In view of above, while causing interference in the order impugned herein, the respondent-University is directed to declare the result of the election. 21. It is when dispute pertaining to election was not during the course of election or immediate after counting of votes. It is more so when dispute is about the eligibility of the candidates thus should have been raised during process of election. If no dispute is raised till then, University was under obligation to declare the result. Accordingly, while quashing the order dated 08.02.2018, we allow the writ petition with a direction to the respondent to declare the result of the election. However, it would not preclude the respondent no. 6 or any other candidate to challenge the election by taking appropriate measures, as provided under the law. A reference of dispute to the Central Government can be made in that case. 22. In view of the acceptance of the prayer, subsequent schedule given in Annexure 2 for the election is set aside.