# Maria M.S. Fernandes v. E.J. De

- **Citation:** (2012) 3 ILRA 1357
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-07-13
- **Bench:** A.P.Sahi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/maria-m-s-fernandes-v-e-j-de-42409
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

C.S.C.
Sri Vinod Kumar Sharma
Sri Vivek Varma
Sri R.N.Ojha
Sri O.P.Ojha

Constitution
Of
India
Art.-226-M.G.
Vidyapeeth Ordinance-Chapter XIII Para
4A(9)-
Election
of
Student
uniondisqualification-to
participate
in
election-on ground charge sheet for
offence under Section 323,504,506 IPC
filed against petitioner-held such union
is nursery for future politics-permitting
such person with criminal background
would frustrate the purpose of reports of
Lingdoh Committee-contesting election
merely a legal and not the fundamental
right-held can not be allowed to contest.

Held: Para-10

Apart from this, it has already been held
in the judgment delivered by this Court
in the case of Vishal Yadav (supra) that
contesting elections is only a legal right
and not a fundamental right. In the
aforesaid circumstances, the restrictions,
which have been placed by virtue of the
said Ordinances, are perfectly saved
under the circumstances and they do not
1358 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
deserve to be tinkered with by this Court
on the judicial side or else this would
encourage
students
of
criminal
background
to
spoil
the
academic
atmosphere
of
institutions
that
are
meant to cater to higher education.
Case Law discussed:
(2006) 8 SCC 304

## Text

3 All] Sudhir Ojha V. State of U.P. & others
1357
passed by the lower appellate court is
modified and it is directed that both the
parties are restrained from transferring
any part of plot nos. 1173 and 1174
during the pendency of the suit. This
direction is being issued without issuing
any notice to the respondent. If he feels
aggrieved by it he is at liberty to apply
for its recall.

4. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has expressed apprehension
that the findings recorded in the order
dated 13.7.2012 by the District Judge
may jeopardise his case in the suit. It is
clarified that while deciding the suit
trial
court
shall
not
take
into
consideration the findings recorded in
the impugned order by the lower
appellate court.

5. It is further directed that in view
of Supreme Court authority reported in
Maria M.S. Fernandes vs. E.J. De
Sequeria
A.I.R.
2012
S.C.
1727
(paragraphs 82 and 83) in case in the
suit in question it is found that plaintiff
has got no title then defendant will not
be required to file a separate suit for dispossession of the plaintiff and in
execution of such decree in this very
suit plaintiff would be liable to be dispossessed.

6. Writ petition is accordingly
disposed of.
---------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.10.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE A.P.SAHI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 53613 Of 2012

Sudhir Ojha

 ....Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Others .Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri H.N. Singh
Sri I.K. Upadhyaya
Sri Vineet Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
Sri Vinod Kumar Sharma
Sri Vivek Varma
Sri R.N.Ojha
Sri O.P.Ojha

Constitution
Of
India
Art.-226-M.G.
Vidyapeeth Ordinance-Chapter XIII Para
4A(9)-
Election
of
Student
uniondisqualification-to
participate
in
election-on ground charge sheet for
offence under Section 323,504,506 IPC
filed against petitioner-held such union
is nursery for future politics-permitting
such person with criminal background
would frustrate the purpose of reports of
Lingdoh Committee-contesting election
merely a legal and not the fundamental
right-held can not be allowed to contest.

Held: Para-10

Apart from this, it has already been held
in the judgment delivered by this Court
in the case of Vishal Yadav (supra) that
contesting elections is only a legal right
and not a fundamental right. In the
aforesaid circumstances, the restrictions,
which have been placed by virtue of the
said Ordinances, are perfectly saved
under the circumstances and they do not
1358 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
deserve to be tinkered with by this Court
on the judicial side or else this would
encourage
students
of
criminal
background
to
spoil
the
academic
atmosphere
of
institutions
that
are
meant to cater to higher education.
Case Law discussed:
(2006) 8 SCC 304

(Delivered by Hon'ble A.P. Sahi, J)

1. Heard Sri H.N. Singh, learned
counsel for the petitioner, who is a student
of M.A. Previous Political Science of Satish
Chand College, Ballia, and he has filed his
nomination for contesting the elections of
the post of President of the Students Union
of the said College which is scheduled to be
held on 14.10.2012. The nomination of the
petitioner has been rejected on the ground
that he is involved in a criminal case.

2. Sri H.N. Singh contends that this
rejection is not based on a correct
interpretation of para 6.5.7 of Lyngdoh
Committee report and further he relies on
the proposed Ordinances of Respondent
No.2 - University to contend that the same
has been erroneously incorporated in the
election
notification
programme
and,
therefore, the rejection of the nomination is
invalid.

3. On facts, it is undisputed that a
charge-sheet has been submitted against the
petitioner in case Crime No.786 of 2011
under Sections 323/504/506 IPC.

4. Sri Singh submits that this appears
to have been done on an investigation
having been carried out on an order passed
in an application under Section 156 (3)
Cr.P.C. He, therefore, submits that in
essence, there is no criminal case pending in
terms of the aforesaid para 6.5.7 of the
Lyngdoh Committee report so as to
disqualify the petitioner from contesting the
elections. Sri Singh contends that the
petitioner has neither been tried nor
convicted
and
in
the
circumstances
attribution of disqualification is unjustified.

5. Sri Vivek Varma for the respondent
No.2 - University relies on a judgment of
this Court dated 5.10.2012, Vishal Yadav
and another Vs. State of U.P. and others,
Writ Petition No.51542 of 2012, to urge that
the matter is no longer res-integra and that
in view of the admitted fact that a chargesheet has already been submitted against the
petitioner, he is disqualified and ineligible
from contesting the election in terms of para
4 (A) (9) of the Ordinances contained in
Chapter XIII of the Ordinances framed for
the Students Union elections. He submits
that reliance placed on the proposed
Ordinances is misplaced and in view of the
decision referred to herein above, this
petition is also squarely covered by the said
decision and accordingly be dismissed.

6. Sri Vinod Kumar Sharma has been
heard for the Caveator - Ashutosh Kumar
Pandey and the learned Standing Counsel
for the respondent No.1. It is not necessary
to issue notice to the respondent Nos. 3 and
4 in view of the order that is proposed to be
passed.

7. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties, the question of applying moral
values was also under consideration by the
Lyngdoh Committee while submitting its
report. In the opinion of the Court, the
Committee was well aware of the fact that
such Students Union are perceived as the
nursery for the rearing for future Politicians
and Leaders of the nation. It is for this
purpose that persons with high moral
character and ethical values get themselves
involved in student politics so that they are
3 All] Sudhir Ojha V. State of U.P. & others
1359
able to lead the nation in future and
accordingly the Lyngdoh Committee report
clearly indicates that the persons of a shady
character or having a criminal background
or antecedents should not be allowed to
contest the elections. This philosophy is
already
contained
in
the
Lyngdoh
Committee
report,
which
has
been
incorporated in the judgment of the Apex
Court in the case of University of Kerala
Vs. Council, Principals' Colleges Kerala and
others, (2006) 8 SCC 304.

8. The paragraph relied upon by Sri
H.N. Singh is a clear indicator and the same
should not be interpreted so as to take out
the essence of the aforesaid philosophy for
preventing persons of criminal background
from entering into Students politics. In the
opinion of the Court, if the suggestion of Sri
Singh is accepted, then the entire Society
will be faced with whatever is happening
today when an University or a College faces
Students Union elections. Judicial notice
can be taken of wide spread reports of arson
and rampage in University and College
campuses when such elections take place
and for this, candidates with criminal
background appear to be responsible.

9. In such a situation, the contention
of Sri Singh is neither acceptable legally or
even morally in the larger interest of the
Society. The rules, which have been framed,
indicate a laudable object, and not a nursery
to generate criminals or politicians with
criminal background. This will be against
public policy and would also be against the
interest of the Society at large. Not only
this, it will be against the interest of the
students and also against the interest of
future generations. Students Union elections
are contested for the purpose of projecting a
political figure who may in future be
involved in active politics of the nation and
the State. Such persons cannot be expected
to be of a criminal background as they have
to lead Society. Allowing persons with a
criminal background would defeat this same
purpose and laudable object as contained in
the Lyngdoh Committee report that has
been accepted by the Supreme Court. In the
aforesaid circumstances, this Court finds
that allowing such candidates to contest
main elections would be putting a premium
to the on going rampage in College
campuses
and
University
grounds.
Accordingly, I am of the firm opinion that
such persons, who have a criminal
background, should be strictly prohibited
from entering this field of nursery of a
students politics. The petitioner is already
chargesheeted and so long he is not
discharged, a proceeding is pending against
him which clearly attracts the ineligibility
clause 4 (A) 9 of the Ordinances. He,
therefore, has been rightly prevented from
contesting elections.

10. Apart from this, it has already
been held in the judgment delivered by this
Court in the case of Vishal Yadav (supra)
that contesting elections is only a legal right
and not a fundamental right. In the aforesaid
circumstances, the restrictions, which have
been placed by virtue of the said
Ordinances, are perfectly saved under the
circumstances and they do not deserve to be
tinkered with by this Court on the judicial
side or else this would encourage students
of criminal background to spoil the
academic atmosphere of institutions that are
meant to cater to higher education.

11. In view of the reasons herein
above, the writ petition deserves to be
dismissed as it lacks complete merit and is
hereby dismissed.
---------
1360 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.10.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VINEET SARAN, J.
THE HON'BLE MUSHAFFEY AHMAD, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 54168 of 2012

Sahajram Maurya

 ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of U.P. and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Tripathi B.G. Bhai

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226Communal Tension-S.D.O. By impugned
order refused permission to hold Durga
Puja-on ground of communal tensionright of every citizen to profess their
religion-direction issued to ensure Durga
Puja-by
providing
alternate
Plot
at
distance of 0.5 Km from Masjid-within 24
hours-refusal order quashed.

Held: Para-8

In view of the aforesaid, we are of the
opinion that the impugned order dated
26.9.2012 deserves to be quashed and is,
accordingly, set aside. We, however,
direct that the respondents no. 2, 3 and
4, the District Magistrate, Siddharth
Nagar,
Sub-Divisional
Magistrate,
Dumariyaganj, district Siddharth Nagar
and the Station Officer Incharge, Police
Station,
Trilokpur,
district
Siddharth
Nagar to ensure that the petitioner is
permitted to hold Durga Puja for the
remaining days of this Navratri at the
place which may be in the same village
around 500 meters away from the Masjid
and ensure that there is no disturbance
amongst the residents of the village.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J.)

1. This writ petition has been filed
with the prayer for quashing the order
dated 26.9.2012 passed by the SubDivisional Magistrate, respondent no. 3
whereby permission to hold the Durga
Puja during Navratri from 16.10.2012 to
24.10.2012 has been refused on the
ground that there is likelihood of the
communal tension. Challenging the said
order as well as praying that the security
be provided for celebrating the Durga
Puja festival in the village in question,
this writ petition has been filed.

2. We have heard Sri Tripathi B.G.
Bhai, learned counsel for the petitioner as
well as Sri Yashwant Varma, learned
Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the
respondents and have perused the record.

3. m Time was granted to Sri Varma
for obtaining instructions, which he states
that he has received, and the same are
taken on record. With consent of the
learned counsel for the parties, we dispose
of this writ petition at this stage without
calling for a counter affidavit.

4. The submission of the learned
counsel for the petitioner is that the plot in
question
where
the
Durga
Puja
celebrations are to be held, belongs to the
petitioner and is at a distance of over 100
meters from the Masjid in the village. The
learned Chief Standing Counsel disputes
the same and as per his instructions, the
plot is in the vicinity of the Masjid, at a
distance of about 50 meters.

5. The ground taken in the order
passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate
is that since similar attempt of holding
Durga Puja during previoius Navratri in