The Madurai Bench dismissed a writ petition challenging a resolution passed by the syndicate of Manonmaniam Sundaranar University. The Court held that a member recording dissent has no right to challenge a majority resolution under Article 226.
No
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.(MD).No.10087 of 2012
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 28.06.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.P.(MD).No.10087 of 2012 and
M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2012
T.Paulpandian
... Petitioner
Vs.
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in
1/6
W.P.(MD).No.10087 of 2012
No.MSU/M&E/SYNCIR/2012, dated 25.06.2012, on the file of the Respondent No.2 and to quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy For R1 & R3 : No appearance For R2 : M/s.H.Jasimayasmine for Ajmal Associates For R4 : Mr.P.Thiyagarajan *****
O R D E R
The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the resolution of the syndicate of the second respondent University.
2.The syndicate of the second respondent University has passed a resolution on 25.06.2012. According to the writ petitioner, he has recorded his dissenting remarks and has objected for the passing of the said resolution. However, without considering his objections, the syndicate of the second respondent University has proceeded to pass the resolution. The said resolution is under challenge in the present Writ Petition.
3.The learned Counsel for the respondent University has
2/6
W.P.(MD).No.10087 of 2012
contended that the writ petitioner being a member of the syndicate, he has to accept the majority views and he cannot challenge the resolution on the ground that his dissent was not accepted by the majority of the members.
4.I have carefully considered the submissions made on either sides. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the resolution passed by the syndicate of the second respondent University on 25.06.2012. Admittedly, the syndicate has not been made a party. That apart, being a member of the syndicate, the petitioner has got every right to record his dissenting views in the said syndicate meeting. However, when the majority of the members in the syndicate meeting accepted the resolution, the petitioner has no other go than, to request the recording of the dissent. Other than the said right, the petitioner has no other right to challenge the resolution passed by way of majority.
5.The learned Counsel for the second respondent University brought to he notice of the Court that the Division Bench of our High
3/6
W.P.(MD).No.10087 of 2012
Court in W.A.(MD)No.323 of 2015, dated 23.08.2017, has held that a
member of a committee has no locus standi to challenge a decision of the
said committee.
6.In view of the above said discussion, I find that the Writ Petition
is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
28.06.2022 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No
Tmg
Note :
In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate / litigant concerned.
4/6
W.P.(MD).No.10087 of 2012
To
The Assistant Director (Rural), Rural Development, Office of Rural Development Assistant Director, Virudhunagar.
5/6
W.P.(MD).No.10087 of 2012
R.VIJAYAKUMAR ,J.
Tmg
Order made in W.P.(MD).No.10087 of 2012
28.06.2022
6/6
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a member of a university syndicate who recorded dissent has locus standi to challenge a majority resolution passed by the syndicate.
Whether the written objection recorded by a dissenting syndicate member precludes filing a writ petition against the majority decision.
Whether Article 226 of the Constitution of India is susceptible to invocation for quashing a majority resolution of a syndicate.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
UnreportedReferred¶35
W.A.(MD)No.323 of 2015
1 provisions across 1 enactments
T. Paulpandian
The Convener Committee, Manonmaniam Sundaranar University
The Manonmaniam Sundaranar University
The Correspondent, S.T. Hindu College
The Correspondent, S.S. Duraisamy Nadar Mariammal College
R. VIJAYAKUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
