JUDGMENT Irshad Ali, J. Heard Shri Prashant Chandra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Radhika Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Shubham Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: "a) issue a writ of certiorari or a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 24.12.2020 passed by the Vice Chancellor contained in Annexure-1. b) issue a writ of mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Vice Chancellor and the respondent-University to continue the election from the stage from where the elections were abruptly stopped. c) issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and necessary in the circumstances of the case may also be passed; and d) to allow the writ petition with costs." 3. Facts of the case are that the petitioner had completed his diploma in the year 1973 and completed post-graduation from the King George's Medical College in the year 1975. On 31.7.2004, the petitioner was registered as a registered graduate at the King George's Medical College placed at serial no.301 of the list of registered graduates. On 3.6.2014, Registrar of the respondent-University had approved and affirmed the status of the petitioner as a registered graduate of King George's Medical University. On 2.12.2020, list of registered graduate was displayed on the website of the respondent-University inviting objections. On 7.12.2020, election program for election of fifteen members of King George's Medical University Court published by the Vice Chancellor of the King George's Medical University. Process of elected commenced. On 14.12.2020, the petitioner required to submit the copy of his degrees. Substituted with a covering letter. On 21.12.2020, the petitioner filed nomination papers for being selected in the Court of the University. On 22.12.2020, legal opinion sought on representation of some teacher (non-applicant), whose application for being registered as a registered graduate had been rejected in 2015 rendered by the legal counsel of the university. Statutory provisions misread and misapplied. On 24.12.2020, Vice Chancellor passed orders solely relying upon and quoting the legal opinion. He ignored the statutory provisions and unilaterally reviewed the earlier decisions though not specifically assailed. No opportunity of hearing provided to the petitioner or any affected person. Process of election was stopped midway and after it was commenced. Statutory provisions misread and misapplied. On 24.12.2020, Vice Chancellor passed orders solely relying upon and quoting the legal opinion. He ignored the statutory provisions and unilaterally reviewed the earlier decisions though not specifically assailed. No opportunity of hearing provided to the petitioner or any affected person. Process of election was stopped midway and after it was commenced. 4. Gist of the issue raised in the petition is recorded in order dated 25.1.2021. The order reads as under: "1. Heard Sri Prashant Chandra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Radhika Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Abhinav Trivedi, learned counsel for the respondent - University. 2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the respondent raised two preliminary objections in regard to maintainability of the writ petition : a) Against the order impugned, reference lies before the Registrar of the University. b) The petition is premature and no final decision has been taken in the matter. Only the election has been cancelled on the ground that there are certain members, who have wrongly been inducted and registered in the electoral college, who has to participate in the election. 3. To meet out the preliminary objection raised by learned counsel for the respondent - University, submission of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was registered at member in accordance with provisions contained under the King George Medical University Act, 2002 (for short, "Act of 2002") and his registration number is 301. 4. He next submitted that after filing of nomination form and during course of process of election, a notice was issued to the petitioner on 14.12.2020. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner produced copy of the registration certificate of membership as well as MBBS / MD degree obtained from KGMU, Lucknow. 5. His further submission is that no notice nor opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner prior to passing of the impugned order cancelling the election, which was going on with the direction to finalize the electoral college afresh and to hold fresh election. 6. 5. His further submission is that no notice nor opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner prior to passing of the impugned order cancelling the election, which was going on with the direction to finalize the electoral college afresh and to hold fresh election. 6. His next submission is that due to non providing of opportunity of hearing, the objection raised in regard to maintainability of writ petition and to avail remedy of reference under Section 53 of the Act of 2002 is contrary to law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others [ 1998 (8) SCC 1 ]. 7. On the point of reference to be filed against the order passed by the Registrar of the University, he further placed reliance upon the following judgments: i) Dr. (Smt.) Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya, Sitapur (U.P.) and others; (1987) 4 SCC 525 . ii) Maharashtra Chess Association v. Union of India and others; 2019 SCC Online 931. 8. In view of the above, his submission is that in case there is violation of principles of natural justice and the order is without jurisdiction, the writ petition filed against the same is maintainable. 9. His next submission is that once the election process has started and it is at the stage of conclusion, after submitting nomination forms, the complaints of outsiders cannot be entertained and the election would not have been cancelled. He further submitted that law is settled that once the election process has started, it should come to its logical end. 10. In view of the above, his submission is that the objection raised by learned counsel for the respondent - University is wholly misconceived and contrary to the law laid down by this court as well as Hon'ble Apex Court. 11. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner. 12. To resolve the controversy involved in the matter, relevant portion of the judgments relied upon by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner are being quoted below: i) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others [ 1998 (8) SCC 1 ]:- "15. 12. To resolve the controversy involved in the matter, relevant portion of the judgments relied upon by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner are being quoted below: i) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others [ 1998 (8) SCC 1 ]:- "15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. There is a plethora of case-law on this point but to cut down this circle of forensic whirlpool, we would rely on some old decisions of the evolutionary era of the constitutional law as they still hold the field. 16. Rashid Ahmad v. Municipal Board, Kairana, AIR 1950 SC 163 , laid down that existence of an adequate legal remedy was a factor to be taken into consideration in the matter of granting writs. This was followed by another Rashid case, namely, K. S. Rashid and Son v. The Income Tax Investigation Commissioner, AIR 1954 SC 207 , which reiterated the above proposition and held that where alternative remedy existed, it would be a sound exercise of discretion to refuse to interfere in a petition under Article 226. This proposition was, however, qualified by the significant words, "unless there are good grounds therefor", which indicated that alternative remedy would not operate as an absolute bar and that writ petition under Article 226 could still be entertained in exceptional circumstances. 17. A specific and clear rule was laid down in State of U.P. v. Mohd. This proposition was, however, qualified by the significant words, "unless there are good grounds therefor", which indicated that alternative remedy would not operate as an absolute bar and that writ petition under Article 226 could still be entertained in exceptional circumstances. 17. A specific and clear rule was laid down in State of U.P. v. Mohd. Nooh, 1958 SCR 595 : AIR 1958 SC 86 , as under : "But this rule requiring the exhaustion of statutory remedies before the writ will be granted is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion rather than a rule of law and instances are numerous where a writ of certiorari has been issued in spite of the fact that the aggrieved party had other adequate legal remedies." 18. This proposition was considered by a Constitution Bench of this Court in A.V. Venkateswaran, Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Ramchand Sobhraj Wadhwani and another, AIR 1961 SC 1506 and was affirmed and followed in the following words : "The passages in the judgments of this Court we have extracted would indicate (1) that the two exceptions which the learned Solicitor General formulated to the normal rule as to the effect of the existence of an adequate alternative remedy were by no means exhaustive and (2) that even beyond them a discretion vested in the High Court to have entertained the petition and granted the petitioner relief notwithstanding the existence of an alternative remedy. We need only add that the broad lines of the general principles on which the Court should act having been clearly laid down, their application to the facts of each particular case must necessarily be dependent on a variety of individual facts which must govern the proper exercise of the discretion of the Court, and that in a matter which is thus pre-eminently one of discretion, it is not possible or even if it were, it would not be desirable to lay down inflexible rules which be applied with rigidity in every case which comes up before the Court." 19. Another Constitution Bench decision in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, Companies Distt. I, AIR 1961 SC 372 laid down : "Though the writ of prohibition or certiorari will not issue against an executive authority, the High Courts have power to issue in a fit case an order prohibiting an executive authority from acting without jurisdiction. Another Constitution Bench decision in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, Companies Distt. I, AIR 1961 SC 372 laid down : "Though the writ of prohibition or certiorari will not issue against an executive authority, the High Courts have power to issue in a fit case an order prohibiting an executive authority from acting without jurisdiction. Where such action of an executive authority acting without jurisdiction subjects or is likely to subject a person to lengthy proceedings and unnecessary harassment, the High Court will issue appropriate orders or directions to prevent such consequences. Writ of certiorari and prohibition can issue against Income Tax Officer acting without jurisdiction under Section 34 I.T. Act." 20. Much water has since flown beneath the bridge, but there has been no corrosive effect on these decisions which, though old, continue to hold the field with the result that law as to the jurisdiction of the High Court in entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, in spite of the alternative statutory remedies, is not affected, specially in a case where the authority against whom the writ is filed is shown to have had no jurisdiction or had purported to usurp jurisdiction without any legal foundation. 21. That being so, the High Court was not justified in dismissing the writ petition at the initial stage without examining the contention that the show cause notice issued to the appellant was wholly without jurisdiction and that the Registrar, in the circumstances of the case, was not justified in acting as the "TRIBUNAL". 22. We proceed to the next question now." ii) Dr. (Smt.) Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya, Sitapur (U.P.) and others; (1987) 4 SCC 525 : "12. The next question that falls for our consideration is whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the writ petition of the appellant on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy. It is true that there was an alternative remedy for challenging the impugned order by referring the question to the Chancellor under section 68 of the U.P. State Universities Act. It is well established that an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the maintainability of a writ petition. It is true that there was an alternative remedy for challenging the impugned order by referring the question to the Chancellor under section 68 of the U.P. State Universities Act. It is well established that an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the maintainability of a writ petition. When an authority has acted wholly without jurisdiction, the High Court should not refuse to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution on the ground of existence of an alternative remedy. In the instant case., the Vice-Chancellor had no power of review and the exercise of such a power by her was absolutely without jurisdiction. Indeed, the order passed by the Vice-Chancellor on review was a nullity; such an order could surely be challenged before the High Court by a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and, in our opinion, the High Court was not justified in dismissing the writ petition on the ground that an alternative remedy was available to the appellant under section 68 of the U.P. State Universities Act." iii) Maharashtra Chess Association v. Union of India and others; 2019 SCC Online 931: "18 This argument of the second Respondent is misconceived. The existence of an alternate remedy, whether adequate or not, does not alter the fundamentally discretionary nature of the High Court's writ jurisdiction and therefore does not create an absolute legal bar on the exercise of the writ jurisdiction by a High Court. The decision whether or not to entertain an action under its writ jurisdiction remains a decision to be taken by the High Court on an examination of the facts and circumstances of a particular case." 13. On perusal of record, it is evident that prior to cancellation of election, the petitioner has not been provided opportunity of hearing on the complaint lodged by an outsider. It is further reflected that cancellation of election is based on the ground that membership of the petitioner is doubtful, which is not permissible in the eyes of law once the election process has started after finalization of electoral college. 14. In the list finalized, name of the petitioner found place and he has submitted his nomination form to contest the election, therefore, the order impugned is wholly illegal and arbitrary in nature. 14. In the list finalized, name of the petitioner found place and he has submitted his nomination form to contest the election, therefore, the order impugned is wholly illegal and arbitrary in nature. Law is settled in this regard that once the election process has started, it should come to its logical end and any party aggrieved may challenge the same by way of filing civil suit or election petition before the competent court of law. 15. In view of the above, the order being violative of principles of natural justice and cancelling the election at intermediate stage, it is held that the petition is maintainable. 16. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner proceeded to make submission on the merit of the impugned order passed by the KGMU. He submitted that once the provisions of Act of 2002 came into existence in year 2002 and in accordance with provisions contained the petitioner was registered as member of the court and participated in the election, the respondent - University was having no legal authority to initiate proceeding of cancellation of membership by cancelling the election. 17. He further submitted that in the Act of 2002, it is no where provided that the members, who have done their graduation from Lucknow University and graduation from Lucknow is entitled to be enrolled as member of the court. The petitioner and his enrolment as member is based on graduation degree obtained from KGMU and does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. 18. His next submission is that the proceeding initiated by the respondent - University is wholly without jurisdiction and is in violation of principles of natural justice. He further submitted that the respondent - University is not competent to review its own order, as in the present case the petitioner has not concealed material fact nor has misrepresented before the respondents. 19. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent - University submitted that under the Act of 2002, there is a saving clause in regard to applicability of provisions of Lucknow University but he failed to point out any provision of the Act of 2002, which provides saving clause in regard to applicability of provisions of Lucknow University after the enactment of Act of 2002. 20. 20. His next submission is that the complaint lodged by outsider was taken into consideration and the matter was reexamined and after taking opinion of the counsel for the university, it was found that certain members have wrongly been included in the voter list, thus, taking into consideration this aspect of the matter, the university resolved to cancel the election so that the list of members finalized may be reviewed and after finalization of the electoral college, fresh election may be held. The order is just and valid and does not suffer from any illegality. 21. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 22. It is not disputed by the parties that after finalization of electoral college on 02.12.2020, as per election schedule, the petitioner and other members filed their nomination forms. It is also reflected from the paper book that a notice was issued to the petitioner calling him to submit his explanation vide letter dated 14.12.2020 and in response thereto, he submitted his degree to the competent authority along with copy of information given to him registering as a member. 23. Thereafter, without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the Registrar has proceeded to pass the order cancelling the election holding that after reviewing the list of electoral college, fresh election shall be held, which was at the final stage. 24. I have also noticed that membership of the petitioner is also under scrutiny which is apparent from perusal of No.301 at page 21 of the paper book, which is registration number of the petitioner. 25. In view of the fact that election was at the final stage and in view of the settled proposition of law, once the election process is started, it should come to its logical end and thereafter, the parties aggrieved are entitled to challenge the same by way of filing civil suit or election petition. Therefore, prima facie, the impugned order appears to be not justified in law. 26. Accordingly, learned counsel for the respondents are granted three week's time to file response to the writ petition. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within a week thereafter. 27. List immediately after expiry of aforesaid period. 28. Therefore, prima facie, the impugned order appears to be not justified in law. 26. Accordingly, learned counsel for the respondents are granted three week's time to file response to the writ petition. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within a week thereafter. 27. List immediately after expiry of aforesaid period. 28. In the mean time, the respondents are directed to initiate the election process as per schedule dated 07.12.2020, which was cancelled, by rescheduling the same and to finalize the election process but result of the same shall not be declared without leave of the court. " 5. In compliance of the above-extracted order, respondents filed counter affidavit wherein it has been stated that the election process has been concluded on 2.11.2021 and all the postal ballot papers sent by the voters of the electoral college had been received and sealed in presence of the members of the high level committee constituted for the purpose of sealing all the postal ballot papers received till 5.00p.m. on 2.11.2021. The ballots after being sealed were locked in the voting box and keys were handed over to the respondent no.2. The counting of votes/ declaration of result has not been done in accordance with the directions passed by this Court. 6. It is well settled law that once the election process has started, it should come to its logical end and any party aggrieved may challenge the same by way of filing civil suit or election petition before the competent court of law, but in this matter nothing has done. 7. Perusal of Clause (9) of Appendix "A" of Statute 2021 indicates that the Registrar has power to correct any error and supply any omission brought to his notice in list of voters, if the name of a person is removed from the list his vote shall not be counted even if he has received the voting paper and recorded his vote, and a certificate that this has been so done, shall be recorded by the Registrar and the persons, if any associated with him in preparing the result of the election. 8. In the instant case, while passing the impugned order the respondents have not applied his mind and has not followed the precedents contained in Clause (9) of Appendix "A" of Statute, 2021. 8. In the instant case, while passing the impugned order the respondents have not applied his mind and has not followed the precedents contained in Clause (9) of Appendix "A" of Statute, 2021. In case any complaint at the final stage has been found, it shall be considered and decided in accordance with Clause (9) of Appendix "A" of Statute, 2021 but the respondents at the final stage has cancelled the election which is contrary to the Clause (9) of the Appendix "A" of Statute, 2021. 9. Perusal of the impugned order cancelling election indicates that prior to passing the impugned order no notice nor opportunity was provided to the petitioner. Therefore, there is utter disregard of principles of natural justice in the matter and the impugned order passed by the respondent is bad in law and is in violation of principles of natural justice. 10. It has been repeatedly held by Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court that rules of natural justice require that a party must be given the opportunity to adduce all relevant evidence upon which he relies, and further that the evidence of the opposite party should be taken in his presence and that he should be given the opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses examined by that party. Not providing the said opportunity would violate the principles of natural justice 11. In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed. Order dated 24.12.2020 passed by the Vice Chancellor, King George's Medical University, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow is quashed. 12. However, respondent no.2 (Registrar, King George's Medical University, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow) is directed to declare the result of the election after exercising his powers conferred in Clause (9) of Appendix "A" of Statute 2011.