9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (12) TMI 583X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the Order dated 07/12/06 passed by the respondent No. 3 (annexure No. 1) and consequential orders passed thereof, and Legal Advise/Order dated 07/12/06 tendered by the respondent No. 6 (7) (Annexure No. 2) b. issue writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent No. 3 and 6 not to give effect to the legal advise (annexure No. 2) so tendered by the respondent No. 6 (7), during the pendency of the writ petition. c. issue writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus, in the light of Citation (2006) 8 SCC 304 University of Kerala us. Councils Principal College and ors as the same is binding upon the Sub Ordinate Courts under Article 141 of the Constit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Council, Principals' Colleges, Kerala (2006) 8 S.C.C. 304 provides for a bar on a candidate, who has previous criminal record, from contesting the election. The relevant paragraph 6.5.7 of the judgment is reproduced below: 6.5.7. The candidate shall not have a previous criminal record, that is to say he should not have been tried and/or convicted of any criminal offence or misdemeanour. The candidate shall also not have been subject to any disciplinary action by the University authorities. 5. In the case of Sri Kant Mishra v. State of U.P. Writ Petition No. 67893 of 2006 decided on 15.12.2006, this Court, while interpreting the aforesaid paragraph 6.5.7, has held that any student against whom any trial in a criminal case is going on wo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ormation Report had been lodged against a student but charge had not been framed. The charge is framed only after the trial court applies its mind and prima-facie finds that the case is worthy of being tried and as such once the charge-sheet has been filed against a candidate, such person is necessarily to be tried of criminal charge. 8. In the present case, the petitioner No. 1 is being tried in not one or two cases, but in several cases, including cases of moral turpitude, and is also lodged in jail under National Security Act. As such, even if assuming that the interpretation of paragraph 6.5.7 of the Supreme Court judgment would have been in his favour (which is not so), then too this Court would have declined to exercise its discretion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In such view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that this writ petition is not only devoid of merit but has been filed with malicious intention and in order to scandalize the University, as well as its lawyer. This writ petition thus deservers to be dismissed with exemplary costs, which this Court assesses at Rs. 50,000/-. The costs may be deposited by, the petitioner with the Registrar General of this Court within one month from today, failing which the Registrar General of this Court shall have the same recovered as arrears of land revenue through the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur. On such costs being deposited, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- shall be paid to the University's counsel Sri B.D. Pandey as costs for having faced humili ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
