Allahabad High CourtOm Prakash Pandey vs Vice Chancellor, Kashi Vidyapeeth, ... on 5 May, 1995Equivalent citations: AIR1995ALL429, (1995)2UPLBEC1240, AIR 1995 ALLAHABAD 429ORDER1. The petitioner claims a relief for quashing of the order dated 29-4-1995 rejecting the nomination paper of the petitioner by which he has been deprived of participating in the election of the students Union of Kashi Vidyapeeth, Varanasi. There are two orders on the record, Annexure 5 to the writ petition, of the same date. The order annexed at page 15 of the paper book speaks that on 27-4-1995 there had been an incident within the premises of Kashi Vidyapeeth in which illegal and unlawful assembly was formed and slogans were raised by the students and the petitioner was the leader of the mob and the mob led by the petitioner had interfered in the University authorities in conducting their normal working and the university property was also damaged. The

authorities and officials of the University and police were assaulted and injured. They were also threatened by the group led by the petitioner. In the University premises there were arson, blasting of bombs and stone pelting. Indispcipline was prevailing every where and in the criminal activities active participalion was of the petitioner and one Rakesh Singh Guddu, By this order, they were suspende and their entry in the premises of Kashi Vidyapeeth was prohibited.2. By another order the Vice Chancellor on the same date i.e. 27-4-1995 expelled the petitioner for two years on account of terrorist and violent indisciplined acts committed by the petitioner. The order of suspension has been made effective with immediate effect. The petitioner has also been prohibited from entering the premises of the Kashi Vidyapeeth.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not been restricted. He has simply been suspended. Unless the petitioner was restricted, the order rejecting the nomination paper is wholly without jurisdiction and such order cannot be sustained. The nomination paper has already been filed. Election is scheduled to be held tomorrow. The learned counsel for the petitioner cited a number of decisions by which he attempted to persuade the Court that the order passed was arbitrary and in violation of rule of natural justice. There was no other effective remedy available to the petitioner for his redress.4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner I do not think that this is tit case in which this Court should interfere. In view of the facts and allegations made in the impunged orders this Court should also not turn itself into a court of fact for adjudicat Ing the disputed question whether such incident took place and whether there was actual participation of the petitioner or not. These questions are left to be decided by the authorities below.In the case ofVice Chancellor, Utkal University v. S.K. Ghoshreported in AIR 1954 SC 217 : 1954 SCR 883, wherein the five judges Constitution Bench was pleased to hold that though an

incorporated like an University is a Jegal entity. It has neither a living mind nor voice. It can only express its will in a formal way by a formal resolution and so can only act in its corporate capacity by resolution properly considered, carried and duly recorded in the mannerlaid down byits constitution. If its rules require such resolutions to be moved and passed in a meeting called for the purpose, then every member of the body entitled to take part in the meeting must be given notice so that he can attend and express his views ..... The Supreme Court was pleased to observe inthe said judgmentthat the High Court Judges held that the want of notice in the two cases invalidated the resolutions. They examined the facts for themselves and concluded that even if the evidence is sufficient to indicate a possibility of some leakage, there was no justification for the syndicate to pass such a drastic resolution in the absence of proof of the quantum and amplitude of leakage. They held that the syndicate had acted unreasonably and without due care. The Hon'ble Supreme Court depricated such interference by the High Court. Such matters are left within the discretion and domain of educational institutions like University.5. After viewing the facts and circumstances of the present case the University authorities of Kashi Vidyapeeth, which is now an University, had taken such a decision debarring the petitioner from participating in the election. I do not consider that this is a fit case for interference.6.   The petition is dismissed  summarily.7. Petition dismissed.