1. Heard learned Advocate Mr.G M Joshi for the petitioner and Mr. S.N.Shelat, Senior Advocate with Mr.Mitul K Shelat for respondents.
2. Mr.
S.N. Shelat, learned Senior Advocate has raised a preliminary objection on maintainability of this petition. He has drawn the attention of this Court to Section 59 of the Sardar Patel University Act, 1955 and, submitted that where there is any question as to interpretation of any provisions of the Act or any Statute, Ordinance or Rule as to the election or appointment or ceasing of a member of any authority or other body of the University, it has to be referred to the State Government.
3. In the present petition, the petitioner has raised dispute about the election of senate members from the constituency of registered faculty of Science.
4. During the course of hearing, several contentions were raised by both the sides, but in light of the above provision, this Court is of the view that it should not go into those issues and may not exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in light of the provisions contained in Section 59 of the Sardar Patel University Act, 1955, which runs as under:
[59. Where any question arises as to :-
(1) the interpretation of any provision of this Act, or of any Statute, Ordinance or Rule, or (2) whether a person has been duly elected or appointed as, or is entitled to be or ceases to be-entitled to be, a member of any authority or other body of the University,
(a) it may be referred to the State Government if it relates to a matter specified in clause (1), and
(b) it shall be referred to the State Government if -
(i) it relates to a matter specified in clause (2), or
(ii) if ten fellows so require, irrespective of whether it relates to a matter specified in clause (1) or clause (2), and the State Government shall after making such inquiry as it deems fit (including giving an opportunity of being heard where necessary) decide the question and its decision shall be final].
5. In view of the above, this petition does not warrant any interference leaving it open for the petitioner to resort to the remedy available under Section 59 of the said Act.
6. However, it is observed that, at this stage, the above decision may not be interpreted to mean that in light of Section 59, this Court will have no jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and only say that in facts of the present case, this Court does not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India leaving it open to the petitioner to explore the alternative remedy. Disposed of accordingly. Notice discharged. No costs. Sd/-
(R.M.
Chhaya, J.) M.M.BHATT Top