Full Text
W.P.(C) 6570/2011 & CMNo.13255/2011 (for interim direction).
RAHISUDDIEN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. K. Venkatraman, Adv.
1&2 with Dr. Atul (Teacher), B.R.
Ambedkar College.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
08.09.2011
ORDER
1. The petitioner, a student of the respondent no.2 Bhim Rao Ambedkar College had filed his nomination for contesting the election scheduled on 9th September, 20llto the Students' Union of the respondent no.2 College; one of the conditions for eligibility for contesting the election was that the age should be between 17 & 22 years; the date of birth of the petitioner is sth September, 1989; the nomination of the petitioner was rejected on 2nd September, 2011 for the reason of the petitioner being overage on the date of election i.e. 9th September, 2011.
2. The contention of the petitioner is that as per the Code of Conduct laid down by the University of Delhi, including for College Students' Union Elections 2011-12, the cut-off date for computing the age is 161 h August of the year of election. lt is thus the case of the petitioner that as on 16'h August, 2011 he was under 22 years of age though as on 9'h September, 2011 he is overage. This petition has been filed impugning the rejection of nomination and seeking interim relief of allowing the petitioner to contest the election scheduled for tomonow i.e. 9th September, 2011. 11- 2011:DHC:18089 The counsel for the respondent no.l Uruversity appearing on advani· ~.). notice infonns that upon the petitioner making a representation to the Grievance Committee fonned in this regard, the case of the petitioner was examined in the meeting held on 5111 September, 2011 and merit was found in the plea aforesaid of the petitioner of his not being overage. It is stated that the Cotmnittee however found that the petitioner was even otherwise not eligible for the reason of not satisfYing another eligibility conditio~ of having minimum of 75% attendance. It is stated that the attendance of the petitioner was 54%; photocopies of two sheets containing the said decision dated 5 September, 2011 and the attendance record of the petitioner are handed over in the Court and which are taken on record.
4. The counsel for the petitioner contends that he was not cmmnunicated the aforesaid decision.
5. The counsel for the respondent no.1 University under instructions from Dr. Atul, Professor in the respondent no.2 College contends otherwise.
6. Be that as it may, in view ofthe aforesaid, this petition is infructuous.
7. The petitioner present in person is unable to state as to what was his attendance.
8. Thus, no purpose will be served in keeping this petition pending. The same is dismissed. No order as to costs. CM No.l3256/2011 (for exemption). Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
SEPTEMBER 08, 2011 pp..
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW,J 21-