DATTATRAYA DEVIDAS DIDOLKAR Vs. VICE CHANCELLOR NAGPUR UNIVERSITY NAGPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this case are members of the Nagpur University Senate as constituted under Section 20 of the Nagpur University Act, 1974, referred to hereinafter as the Act.. The petitioner at present are detained under Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act in Central Jail, Nagpur.

(2.) It appears from the record that the Register of the Nagpur University under the directions of the Chancellor has convened annual meeting of the University Senate on Saturday the 21st February 1976, at 11.00 a.m. under Section 21 (1) of the Act. The relevant items which are germane to the controversy involved in this petition are items Nos. 2 and 3 of the agenda, which read as under:-

(3.) Shri Udhoji, the learned counsel for the petitioners, contended before us that the interpretation put forward by the University authorities upon the provisions of Statute 36 is not in accordance with the well established principles of interpretation of Statutes. He further contended that after framing of the new Statute under the new Act, the Statute framed under the old Act ceased to be in force, and therefore, the procedure followed by the University authorities in holding the elections as per old Statute 26 is illegal. He further contended that under the new Act specific Statutes have been framed for the purposes of holding elections. including Statute 36. According to the learned counsel, Statutes 33,34,35,36,37,38,39 and 40 deal with the procedure of elections to the various authorities in holding elections to the various authorities of the University. Statutes 33,34,35 and 36 apply to all the elections held under the Act. Items Nos. 2 and 3 on the agenda of the meeting deal with the election to be held under the provisions of the act. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, Statutes 36 will also apply to the said elections. He further contended that under statute 36 the petitioners, being the persons detained under the preventive detention law, are entitled to cast there votes by postal ballots, and therefore, the action of the University in refusing to issue the postal ballots to them is illegal and is contrary to Statute 36 of the Statutes framed under the Act.