# Dr. Ashish Mahendra v. Vice Chancellor, R.M.L.A. University, Faizabad & Ors

- **Citation:** (2019) 2 ILRA 1051
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-09-18
- **Case number:** Misc. Bench No. 6804 of 2018
- **Bench:** Munishwar Nath Bhandari, Alok Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dr-ashish-mahendra-v-vice-chancellor-r-m-l-a-university-faizabad-ors-44554
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

1052 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
C.S.C., A.S.G., Sri Abhinav N. Trivedi, Sri
Amit Jaisawal-Ojus Law, Dr. V.K. Singh,
Sri Manu Kumar Srivastava

A. Dentist Act, 1948 - Sections -3(d) & 5
- No dispute regarding eligibility of the
candidate- raised during process of election or
till the declaration of result-If no dispute is
raised till then, University was under obligation
to declare the result-declaration of election
result withheld illegally-order of cancellation of
election of the representative of the University
in the Dental Council of India passed by
Registrar
of
University-which
is
under
challenge-had no authority to cancel-should
have refered the matter to the Central
Government.

Held: - It is when dispute pertaining to
election was not during the course of election
or immediately 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.

Writ Petition allowed. (E-8)

## Text

2 All. Dr. Ashish Mahendra Vs Vice Chancellor, R.M.L.A. University, Faizabad & Ors.
1051
The registered offices of the plaintiff and
the defendant are admittedly situated in
Calcutta and Hyderabad, respectively.
The
jurisdiction
of
the
courts
at
Sonbhadra is being invoked only on the
ground that material was produced and
supplied from the unit of the plaintiff
situated at Sonbhadra on the plea that part
of the cause of action arose at Sonbhadra.

20. The place from where these
goods were supplied would not materially
altered nor would be necessarily require
to be look into the suit.

21. The suit in essence is a money
suit, filed claiming breach of a contract
for supply of aluminium chloride, which
was duly supplied but payment for suit
supply has not been made or has been
made in part only. The plaintiff therefore,
needs to allege and prove the contract;
that the material has been supplied but
payment has not been made. In this
context, the place from where the
aluminium chloride was dispatched to the
defendant is not relevant. It is neither
required to be alleged or proved, nor will
the said fact materially effect the outcome
of the suit. The place from where the
goods were supplied therefore is not a fact
which is required within the bundle of
facts. Comprising the cause of action of
the suit itself.

22. Cause of action are those bundle
of facts which need to be traversed in the
suit before any relief can be granted to the
plaintiff. Any fact which is not relevant
for deciding the suit does not constitute
the cause of action. In the case at hand all
that is required to be established is that
goods under the purchase order, placed by
the defendant, were supplied but not paid
for. The place from where the goods were
supplied is not material and for the same
reason it is not a relevant fact, constituting
the cause of action. Therefore, the same
cannot be made a ground to claim that
part of the cause of action arose at
Sonbhadra.

23. In view of the foregoing
discussion and since the judgement cited
by counsel for the revisionist is not
applicable in the facts and circumstances
of this case, the impugned order is not
found to suffer from any illegality or any
manifest
or
jurisdictional
error,
warranting interference.

24. The revision is accordingly,
dismissed.
----------

(2019)10ILR A 1051

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 18.09.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MUNISHWAR NATH
BHANDARI, J.
THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Misc. Bench No. 6804 of 2018

Dr. Ashish Mahendra ...Petitioner
Versus
Vice
Chancellor,
R.M.L.A.
University,
Faizabad & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Pankaj Srivastava, Sri Abhay Kumar
Khare, Sri Abhishek Dwivedi, Sri Arun
Kumar Yadav, Sri Kshitij Mishra, Sri
Ramendra Kumar Yadav, Sri Sanjay
Bhasin

Counsel for the Respondents:
1052 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
C.S.C., A.S.G., Sri Abhinav N. Trivedi, Sri
Amit Jaisawal-Ojus Law, Dr. V.K. Singh,
Sri Manu Kumar Srivastava

A. Dentist Act, 1948 - Sections -3(d) & 5
- No dispute regarding eligibility of the
candidate- raised during process of election or
till the declaration of result-If no dispute is
raised till then, University was under obligation
to declare the result-declaration of election
result withheld illegally-order of cancellation of
election of the representative of the University
in the Dental Council of India passed by
Registrar
of
University-which
is
under
challenge-had no authority to cancel-should
have refered the matter to the Central
Government.

Held: - It is when dispute pertaining to
election was not during the course of election
or immediately 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.

Writ Petition allowed. (E-8)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Munishwar Nath
Bhandari, J. & Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J.)

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.
2 All. Dr. Ashish Mahendra Vs Vice Chancellor, R.M.L.A. University, Faizabad & Ors.
1053

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. 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
1054 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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. 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:

pquko lEca/kh fooj.k fuEuor~ gS%&
dzekad fooj.k
fnukad
le;
1-
pquko
gsrq
ukekadu
frfFk
21-09-2017 iwokZUg 11-00
cts ls
vijkUg 4-00
cts rd
2-
ukekadu
okilh
dh
frfFk
22-09-2017 iwokZUg 11-00
cts ls
vijkUg 4-00
cts rd
3-
pquko
1⁄4ernku1⁄2
23-09-2017 iwokZUg 12-00
cts ls
vijkUg 4-00
cts rd
4-
erx.kuk ,oa
pquko
ifj.kke
23-09-2017 lka;
5-00
cts

1⁄4 lat; dqekj 1⁄2
dqy lfpo@pquko vf/kdkjh

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
2 All. Dev Bux Singh Vs Deputy Director Consolidation Faizabad & Ors.
1055
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 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 nondeclaration 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.
----------

(2019)10ILR A 1055

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 27.02.2018

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAKESH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Consolidation No. 4196 of 2018

Dev Bux Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Deputy Director Consolidation
Faizabad & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Onkar Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Badrish Tripathi