Disposed

Ajay Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC3 Jan 2018WRIC/59165/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged a mid-session Students Union election on grounds it disrupted academics and violated ordinances and Supreme Court directions. The respondent informed the election had already been held following Municipality elections. The Court found no further action needed.

What did the court decide?

No interim or final order issued; petition dismissed on the record being fresh.

Ajay Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 33

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 59165 of 2017

¶3

Petitioner :- Ajay Pratap Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nipun Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Avneesh Tripathi

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.

¶5

On 12.12.2017, this Court had passed the following order:-

¶6

"The petitioner is a student of final year B.Tech of an institute namely Sir Chhotu Ram Institute of Engineering and Technology which is being run inside the University campus. He is aggrieved by the notification for election of Students Union of the University in the mid session.

¶7

Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is based upon the direction of the Apex Court in the case of University of Kerala Vs. Council, Principals' Colleges, Kerala & others reported in 2006 (8) SCC 304 whereby while accepting the report of Lyngdoh committee giving recommendation and suggestion to Students Union election, an observations was made by the Apex Court that the elections be held on yearly basis within 06 to 08 weeks from the date of commencement of the Academic Session.

¶8

Specific contention of learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the election in the mid session is that the entire academic atmosphere of the University has been disturbed so much so that the mid-semester examination of the University which were due in the month of December 2017 had to be postponed.

¶9

The academic session in the University had commenced in the month of July 2017 and would be over by 30.06.2018. The entire exercise for holding election of Students Union is thus contrary to the Ordinances framed by the University, itself.

¶10

Sri Avneesh Tripathi learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 & 3 prays for and is permitted to file a counter affidavit within a period of two weeks. One week, thereafter, is granted to file rejoinder affidavit .

¶11

List after three weeks.

¶12

Specific reply with regard to the grievances raised by the petitioner with regard to the holding of election in mid session and no effort having been made by the respondent-University to regularize the election of StudentsUnion as per the recommendation of Lyngdoh committee shall be placed before the Court in the counter affidavit to be filed by the next date fixed."

¶13

Pursuant to the above order, Sri Avaneesh Tripathi, who has appeared on behalf of respondents 2 and 3, has made a statement that not only the examinations have been held but the students union elections have also been held. He has also informed the court that in view of the intervening municipal elections, a Government Order was issued to conduct student union elections after the municipal elections and, therefore, the guidelines

¶14

issued by the Lyngdoh Committee could not be strictly followed but, in future, the University assures that the same would be followed.

¶15

In view of the above, no further action is needed in the present petition. The petition is disposed of .

¶16

Order Date :- 3.1.2018 Sunil Kr Tiwari

Ajay Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raj Kumar Rajbhar Vs Union of India and 3 Others

Vaishnavi Balika Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya Allahabad Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shree Gopal Adarsh Vidhyalaya Society Hathras and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Km. Jyoti Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rohit Singh Patel Vs Union of India and 3 Others

Maharshi Dayanand Sansthan Allahabad and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another