- (1.) 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, blashing of bombs and stone pelting. Indispcipline was prevailing every where and in the criminal activities active participation was of the petitioner and one Rakesh Singh Guddu, By this order, they were suspended 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 indispciplined 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.;