# University of Kerala v. Council

- **Citation:** (2012) 3 ILRA 1496
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-09-17
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 46244 of 2012
- **Bench:** Amreshwar Pratap Sahi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/university-of-kerala-v-council-42336
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226Disqualification
to
contest-Student's
Union Election-as per para 1 of Code of
Election 2012-upper age limit 25 years
fixed-on last date of submission of
nomination form-petitioner is more than
25 years-argument that as per guidelines
of Apex Court election be held with 6 to
8 weeks of commencement of academic
session-if election held in start of July
2011-petitioner was eligible to contestheld-election to be held as per cut of
date-it can not be ultra vires-in any waypetition dismissed.

Held: Para-9

Apart from this, the Court has to apply
the golden rule of construction and has
to construe all the provisions read
together.
They
cannot
be
read
in
isolation to each other. The elections
have to be held through a process and
therefore there has to be a cut off date
for the purpose of computing the age of
a candidate. It cannot be an ongoing or a
never ending process, Accordingly, the
cut off date as provided, that is the last
date of nomination, does not in any way
appear to be ultra vires either the
provisions of the regulations, or the
judgment of the apex court, as relied
upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioner.

## Text

1496 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.09.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 46244 of 2012

Vivekanand Pathak

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India Thru Secy. and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Jitendra Kumar
Sri Abhishek Rai

Counsel for the Respondents:
 A.S.G.I.
Sri Ram Gopal Tripathi
Sri A.K. Goyal
Sri Kasif Zaidi

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226Disqualification
to
contest-Student's
Union Election-as per para 1 of Code of
Election 2012-upper age limit 25 years
fixed-on last date of submission of
nomination form-petitioner is more than
25 years-argument that as per guidelines
of Apex Court election be held with 6 to
8 weeks of commencement of academic
session-if election held in start of July
2011-petitioner was eligible to contestheld-election to be held as per cut of
date-it can not be ultra vires-in any waypetition dismissed.

Held: Para-9

Apart from this, the Court has to apply
the golden rule of construction and has
to construe all the provisions read
together.
They
cannot
be
read
in
isolation to each other. The elections
have to be held through a process and
therefore there has to be a cut off date
for the purpose of computing the age of
a candidate. It cannot be an ongoing or a
never ending process, Accordingly, the
cut off date as provided, that is the last
date of nomination, does not in any way
appear to be ultra vires either the
provisions of the regulations, or the
judgment of the apex court, as relied
upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioner.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap
Sahi, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner, Sri Abhishek Rai and Sri A.K.
Goyal for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4,
and Sri Kasif Zaidi for the respondent No.
1.

2. The respondent University is a
Central University. Regulations for the
conduct of Students' Union Election
known as the Code of Election 2012 have
been framed. The petitioner has come up
assailing the action of the University as
also challenging Paragraph 1 of the
eligibility criteria of the said Code which
prescribes the cut off date for computing
the age of a contestant. The said provision
clearly indicates that the age of a
candidate has to be computed on the date
of filing of the nomination. Admittedly
the last date for nominations according to
the University is 24th September, 2012.
The petitioner has also admittedly become
25 years of age on 11th July, 2012 and is
a postgraduate student. Accordingly, the
petitioner
becomes
disqualified
for
contesting the elections as on the date of
nomination he would be above 25 years
of age.

3. To advance his submissions,
learned counsel for the petitioner takes the
help of Guidelines No. 6.4.2 that has been
adopted by the apex court in the case of
University of Kerala Vs. Council,
Principles, Colleges Kerala and others,
3 All] Vivekanand Pathak V. Union of India Thru Secy. and others

1497
(2008) 8 SCC 304 to contend that
elections have to be held within 6 to 8
weeks of the date of commencement of
the Academic Session.

4. Learned counsel submits that the
Academic Session of the petitioner had
already commenced in July, 2011 and had
the elections been held within 6 to 8
weeks of such session, the petitioner
would have been entitled to contest the
elections. It is the delay in the holding of
the elections that has resulted in the
disqualification of the petitioner and
therefore by way of a necessary fiction
the petitioner's claim to contest the
election even after crossing the age of 25
years should be construed to be within the
eligibility zone as defined therein.

5. Learned counsel therefore submits
that the provision of specifying the cut off
date is contrary to the aforesaid view
expressed by the apex court in relation to
the holding of elections within the same
Academic Session.

6.

Learned
counsel
for
the
University
contends
that
the
same
judgment also makes a provision for
fixing the upper age limit and prescribing
the rules for computing the age of
candidates in paragraph 6.5 of the
judgment. He further contends that the
University after due deliberations has
made a provision that the last date of
nomination should be the cut off date. He
therefore contends that there being no
contradiction, the University is entitled to
fix a date as such the contention raised on
behalf of the petitioner cannot be
accepted.

7. Sri Goyal further contends that
merely because the University had not got
the Students' Union Elections held for the
Session 2011-12, the same cannot be a
ground to strike down the provision of the
cut off date, and if the petitioner was
claiming any such right, he could have
claimed it during the same session not
after the expiry of the session.

8. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties and having considered the
aforesaid
provisions,
the
facts
are
admitted on record including the fact that
the elections were not held in the previous
session. In my opinion, if the petitioner
wanted to assert his rights to contest an
election, it was open to him to have
approached the appropriate forum for the
holding of the elections. Merely because
the elections have not been held in the
same Academic Session, does not in any
way provide a ground to declare the cut
off date as ultra vires, inasmuch as, the
said cut off date was very much relevant
even for the previous session.

9. Apart from this, the Court has to
apply the golden rule of construction and
has to construe all the provisions read
together. They cannot be read in isolation
to each other. The elections have to be
held through a process and therefore there
has to be a cut off date for the purpose of
computing the age of a candidate. It
cannot be an ongoing or a never ending
process, Accordingly, the cut off date as
provided, that is the last date of
nomination, does not in any way appear to
be ultra vires either the provisions of the
regulations, or the judgment of the apex
court, as relied upon by the learned
counsel for the petitioner.

10. In the aforesaid circumstances,
the argument advanced that merely
because the elections were not held in the
1498 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

previous year gives a right to the
petitioner by way of a fiction to contest
elections even after the expiry of the term,
cannot be accepted. The argument is too
far fetched.

11. The writ petition lacks merit and
is hereby dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.10.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
THE HON'BLE MRS. SUNITA AGARWAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 48461 of 2012

M/S Neelam Restorant
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. Thru Secy. and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Mukesh Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Child Labor (Prohibition & Regulation)
Act 1986-Section 3-Labor Enforcement
Officer/Inspector-found children about
13 years working-following the direction
of M.C. Mehta Case directed to deposit
Rs. 20,000-on each child-argument that
Trial still going on and the petitionergranted bail-if got fair acquittal-such
direction
worthless-held-on
acquittalrequest for refund open-no ground for
quashing the impugned order.

Held: Para-19

In the present case, the complaint has
already been filed and the same is
pending. In the event the outcome of the
complaint is that there was no violation
of the provisions of Section 3 of the 1986
Act by the employer, the employer can
always request the Inspector to refund
the amount already realised. The basis
for realisation of amount of Rs.20,000/-
is an act of offending employer which is
in contravention of the provisions of the
1986 Act. In the event it is found by the
Magistrate trying the complaint that
there was no contravention of the
provisions of Section 3 of the 1986 Act
by the employer, the employer from
whom the amount has been recovered,
can always request for refund of the
same.
Case Law discussed:
(1996) 6 SCC 756; (2006) 9 SCC 225

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.)

1. Heard Sri Mukesh Kumar, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Archana
Srivastava,
learned
Standing
Counsel
appearing for the State-respondents.

2. In pursuance of the order dated 20th
September, 2012, learned Standing Counsel
has obtained instructions and by consent of
the learned counsel for the parties, the writ
petition is being finally decided.

3. By this writ petition, the petitioner
has prayed for quashing the citation dated
30th July, 2012 issued to the petitioner for
recovery of an amount of Rs.20,000/- on
account of engagement of child labour.

4. On 16th June, 2010 the Labour
Enforcement Officer/Inspector conducted a
survey of petitioner's restaurant at 9.35 A.M.
in which survey a child labour, namely,
Shani Kumar son of Arman Singh aged 13
years was found to be engaged in
contravention of Section 3 of the Child
Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act,
1986 (hereinafter referred to as the 1986
Act). A complaint dated 27th April, 2011
was filed by the said Labour Enforcement
Officer/Inspector under the 1986 Act before