# Chandra Bhan alias Palu v. Director of Higher Education, U.P., Allahabad and others

- **Citation:** (2005) 1 ILRA 257
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2004-10-14
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 44190 of 2004
- **Bench:** Arun Tandon
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/chandra-bhan-alias-palu-v-director-of-higher-education-u-p-allahabad-and-others-40360
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Article 14- Rights
to contest election-whether a is, it
statutory
right?
Held-'No'-clause
20
provides-admission in Single Subject-not
a
regular
statement-Petition
being
student B.Sc. Part III in Single subjectnot a regular student-depositing the
student unlcen fee-can not confer any
right-No question of discrimination.

Held: Para 4

Petitioner has been granted admission in
a single subject (B.Sc. Part-III), as such
in view of the provisions of the rules
regulating the elections, he not being a
regular student is not entitled to contest
the election. The identity card issued to
petitioner is for the purpose to enable
him to undertake the practical classes in
the subject (B.Sc.-III). Therefore, no
benefit
can
be
withdrawn
by
the
petitioner on the basis of the identity
card. Similarly, the depositing of student
union membership fee cannot confer a
right upon the petitioner to contest the
election. It is needless to point out that
right to contest election is statutory
right.
Case law discussed:
2000 (10) SCC 648

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1All]
Chandra Bhan V. Director of Higher Education, U.P., Allahabad and others
257
 used filthy language and dragged him out
of his chamber. It was held that the act
had reasonable nexus with the official
duty of the appellant and no criminal
proceeding could be initiated against the
application
without
obtaining
prior
sanction because the appellant was
present there in his official capacity as
Sub
Divisional
Magistrate
for
the
purposes of removal of the encroachment
from the government land and in exercise
of such duty he committed the act.

11. In instant case it is admitted that
the applicants are officers or employee of
the Nagar Nigam, Gorakhpur, it is alleged
that and they are protected under Section
570 of the U. P. Municipal Corporation
Act as Government servant and officers
are protected under section 197 of Cr.P.C.

12. In instant case when Corporator
moved application and complaint was
received from another person also the
Mukhya Nagar Adhikari sent letter no.
203 dated 5.9.2002 to Superintendent of
Police,
Gorakhpur
that
complainant-
respondent and two others had made
encroachment on path of Nagar Palika
Parishad by installing water tank and
erecting Chabutara. On receipt of the
letter the Superintendent of Police passed
order on 9.9.2002, copy of which is
Annexure no. 2 to the affidavit, for
removal of encroachment on 11.9.2002
and for maintaining law and order on the
spot. Police force was appointed and
duties were allotted to the police officials.
The Superintendent of Police directed that
the police force be got made available to
the officers and officials of Nagar Nigam,
Gorakhpur, so that encroachment may be
removed. When police force was made
available the applicants made compliance
of the order passed by the Mukhya Nagar
Adhikari. Thus it is a clear case in which
the applicants acted in discharge of their
official duties and therefore, they are
protected by Section 570 of the U.P.
Municipal Corporation Act, 1959 and
complaint case against the applicants
cannot proceed.

13. The applicant no. 2 has filed
affidavit and has denied that any insulting
language was used or any threatening was
extended. No enmity was existing on the
date of the occurrence between the
complainant- O. P. No. 2 and the
applicants. Therefore, there is no reason
to disbelieve the affidavit of the applicant
no. 2.

14. Therefore, the application under
Section
482
Cr.P.C.
filed
by
the
applicants is allowed and the proceedings
of Complaint Case No. 1189 of 2002
pending against the applicants in the
Court
of
Additional
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate III, Gorakhpur, including the
summoning order dated 18.3.2004 is
quashed.
Application allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.10.2004

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ARUN TANDON, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 44190 of 2004

Chandra Bhan alias Palu
 ...Petitioner
Versus
Director
of
Higher
Education,
U.P.,
Allahabad and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.D. Agrawal
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in

INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
[2005
 258
Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Constitution of India, Article 14- Rights
to contest election-whether a is, it
statutory
right?
Held-'No'-clause
20
provides-admission in Single Subject-not
a
regular
statement-Petition
being
student B.Sc. Part III in Single subjectnot a regular student-depositing the
student unlcen fee-can not confer any
right-No question of discrimination.

Held: Para 4

Petitioner has been granted admission in
a single subject (B.Sc. Part-III), as such
in view of the provisions of the rules
regulating the elections, he not being a
regular student is not entitled to contest
the election. The identity card issued to
petitioner is for the purpose to enable
him to undertake the practical classes in
the subject (B.Sc.-III). Therefore, no
benefit
can
be
withdrawn
by
the
petitioner on the basis of the identity
card. Similarly, the depositing of student
union membership fee cannot confer a
right upon the petitioner to contest the
election. It is needless to point out that
right to contest election is statutory
right.
Case law discussed:
2000 (10) SCC 648

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Tandon, J.)

1. Heard R.D. Agrawal on behalf of
the petitioner and Learned Standing
Counsel on behalf of respondent no.1.

2. Petitioner has admittedly been
granted admission in B.Sc. Part-III (single
subject only). The petitioner has been
restrained from contesting the election of
the student union of Bareilly College,
Bareilly in view of the provisions
regulating the elections of the Union as
framed by the institution, copy whereof
has been enclosed as Annexure-6 to the
writ petition. Clause 20 of the aforesaid
rules provides that a candidate admitted in
a single subject shall not be treated to be a
regular student. It has further been
provided
that
a
student
obtaining
admission in a single subject may be
permitted
by
the
Principal
of
the
institution to undertake practical classes
also, however, the said permission would
not amount to petitioner being treated as a
regular student.

3. On behalf of the petitioner it is
contended that he has deposited the
requisite fee and has also been issued
identity card, copy whereof have been
enclosed as Annexure-1 and 2 to the writ
petition. The petitioner further contended
that a certificate has been issued by the
Principal of the college categorically
stating that the petitioner is a bona fide
student of the college. The petitioner has
also made reference to the document
dated 29th September, 2004 whereby he
has deposited student union membership
fee to the tune of Rs. 25/- which has been
accepted and, therefore, the petitioner has
become a valid member of the student
union and is entitled to contest the
elections. It is further stated that if the
petitioner is not permitted to contest the
election there would be violation of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Lastly it is contended that it is in the
interest of the student and public also that
the petitioner should be permitted to
contest the election.

I have heard counsel for the parties
and have gone through the records of the
writ petition.

4. The contentions raised on behalf
of the petitioner are totally misconceived.
From the documents, which have been
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1All] M/s Laxmi Palace (Cinema), Varanasi, V. P.O., Labour Court Varanasi and others
259
 brought on record by the petitioner
including the admit card, fee receipt,
identity card and the certificate issued by
the Principal, it is established beyond
doubt that the petitioner has not been
declared to be a regular student of the said
college.
As
already
noticed
above,
petitioner has been granted admission in a
single subject (B.Sc. Part-III), as such in
view of the provisions of the rules
regulating the elections, he not being a
regular student is not entitled to contest
the election. The identity card issued to
petitioner is for the purpose to enable him
to undertake the practical classes in the
subject (B.Sc.-III). Therefore, no benefit
can be withdrawn by the petitioner on the
basis of the identity card. Similarly, the
depositing of student union membership
fee cannot confer a right upon the
petitioner to contest the election. It is
needless to point out that right to contest
election is statutory right (Reference-
2000 (10) SCC 648; University of Delhi
and another Vs. Anand Vardhan Chandal)
and the right to contest election and to
participate in the election is regulated
under the provisions so made.

5. In such circumstances, since the
petitioner does not answer the description
of regular student of Bareilly College,
Bareilly, the question of his being
permitted to contest the election does not
arise. The plea of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India, raised on behalf of
the petitioner, is totally out of context.

6. As in paragraph 6 of the writ
petition it has been stated that the said
rule 10(b) on the basis whereof the
petitioner has been held not to be a
regular
student
has
already
been
challenged by the petitioner in writ
petition no. 41948 of 2004, in which no
interim order is granted to the petitioner.
In such circumstances, if said writ petition
is dismissed, no grievance can be
survived.

With these observations, writ petition
stands dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.02.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.N. SRIVASTAVA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28460 Of
1997

M/S
Laxmi
Palace
(Cinema)
Mahmoorganj Varanasi

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Presiding officer Labour Court Varanasi
and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri T.P. Singh
Sri S.S. Nigam
Sri Siddharth Singh
Sri Anupam Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri P.C. Jhingan
Sarita Jhingan
S.C.

U.P. Industrial Dispute Rules 1957-Rule
16 (1)-Exparte award-despite of service
of Notices the employer failed to appearLabor Court invested with the Power to
procee exparte-but the approach should
be one simulating the judicial standeraward being bereft of any discussion on
merit-Non
application
of
mind-heldconspicuously discernible in the order
can not sustained.

Held: Para 10