Full Text
42.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 6543/2011 & CM No.l3186/2011 (for stay).
GAGAN DEEP SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Puneet Agrawal, Adv.
Through: Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Adv. for R-1.
ROHIT CHAUDHARY ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Puneet Agrawal, Adv.
Through: Mr. Mohinder J.S. ..... Respondents Rupal, Adv. for
R-1.
08.09.2011
I. The petitioner had filed his nomination papers for contesting the ensuing election for the post of President of the Students' Union of the respondent no.2 Dyal Singh College. One of the eligibility conditions for so contesting the election was of the candidate having secured minimum 45% marks in the last examination held. The petitioner admittedly did not satisfY
1/- 2011:DHC:18148 the said requirement, having secured 44.6% marks in the last examination held. His nomination was accordingly not accepted.
ORDER
2. Though this writ petition has been filed challenging rejection of the nomination and impugning the condition aforesaid imposed by the respondent no.2 College and interim relief of restraining the election scheduled to be held tomonow i.e. 9111 September, 2011 has been claimed but the counsel for the petitioner states that he is not pressing the challenge to the rejection of his nomination and consequently not claiming the interim relief and confines the relief to the validity of the condition so imposed by the respondent no.2 College.
3. It is contended that there is no such eligibility condition imposed in the elections of the Students' Union of the University and that the Lyngdoh Committee whose report was accepted by the Supreme Court and is binding on the University has also only provided for the candidates not having any academic anears in the vear of contesting the election and the.said " ~ Committee had also refi"ained from prescribing any particular minimum marks to be attained by the candidate. It is further contended that most ofthe other colleges ofthe University are not imposing any such condition.
4 The petitioner thus contends that the respondent no.2 College is not entitled to impose such additional eligibility condition and which is contrary to the democratic rights ofthe petitioner to contest the election.
5. Though. primajacie there does not appear to be any harm in imposing such a condition in as much as it is in the interest of the students also that only academically meritorious students are elected, the counsel for the University appearing on advance notice states that the said question has not been considered in the past. 21-
6. Issue notice. y/ Notice is accepted by the counsel for the resludent No.1 University. The perit'ioner to serve the respondent no.2 College by all modes including dasti, retumable on 11 November, 2011.
7. It is made clear rhat the question being purely legal, even if counter affidavits are not filed, the matter shall be heard. c r..,,h,,.., ~011 J.,._:;st on i 1 i\JOVe-Inber~.!... CJVI NcJJl36/2011 (for direction). Dismissed as not pressed. CVI No.l3187/2011 (for exemption) AHowed, subject to just exceptions. 'vV.P.IC! 6561/2011. The cOLmsel for the petitioner states that he has instructions to withdraw \N.P.(C)656l!20 11. Dismissed as withdrawn with no order as to costs. CM No. 13224/201 l (for exemption).."dlov>ecL oc1bject to just exceptions. SEPT EfvlBER 08, 201! pp.. l<-AJIV SAHAI END LAW,J