http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  967 of 2008

PETITIONER: ANAND SHARADCHANDRA OKA

RESPONDENT: UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/02/2008

BENCH: C.K. THAKKER & ALTAMAS KABIR

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

CIVIL APPEAL NO.         967       OF 2008 ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 4590 OF 2006

C.K. THAKKER, J.

1.              Leave granted. 2.              The present appeal is filed against  final judgment and order dated August 8, 2005  passed by the High Court of Judicature at  Bombay in Writ Petition No. 1513 of 2005.  By  the impugned order, the High Court dismissed  the petition on the ground that the writ  petitioner could not be said to be ’aggrieved  party’.  In view of the said finding, the High  Court did not consider it appropriate to  express any opinion on the question raised in  the petition. 3.              Shortly stated the facts of the case  are that the first respondent is University of  Mumbai. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are Vice  Chancellor and Registrar respectively of  respondent No.1, whereas Respondent No. 4 is  the State of Maharashtra. The University is  governed by the provisions of the Maharashtra  Universities Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to  as ’the Act’).  4.              On August 2, 1999, the respondent  University issued a notification calling for  applications from registered graduates in the  prescribed form for getting their names  registered in the electoral roll for electing  ten members in the Senate of the University.   The writ-petitioner who holds LL.M. degree of  the University applied for registering his name  in the said roll. The respondent-University,  however, addressed a letter to the writ  petitioner, calling upon him to submit his  Bachelor Degree Certificate to ascertain  whether he had obtained Graduate Degree from  the said University.  According to the writ  petitioner, if a person has obtained Master  Degree or Doctoral Degree from the University,  his name also should be included in the  electoral roll and he cannot be denied  registration only on the ground that he had not

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

obtained Graduate Degree from the University.   The writ petitioner, in the circumstances,  approached the High Court by filing Writ  Petition No. 436 of 2000 challenging the  interpretation placed by the respondent- University on the term ’Graduate’.  The High  Court found prima facie substance in argument  of the writ petitioner and admitted the  petition by issuing Rule nisi.  But, by the  time the writ petition came up for final  hearing, elections were over and the High Court  did not think it fit to express any opinion on  the question of law raised by the writ  petitioner and disposed it of observing that  the petition had become ’infructuous’.  The  question of law, however, was kept open. 5.              Once again when the elections were  scheduled to be held, the question of  interpretation of the word ’Graduate’ came up  for consideration. The writ-petitioner  addressed a letter to the University on October  25, 2004 to re-consider the legal issue.  The  respondent-University, however, disregarded the  writ petitioner’s request and issued a  notification on April 22, 2005 for election of  Senate. It insisted to register names of those  persons who had obtained Graduate Degree from  the University.  The writ petitioner,  therefore, was constrained to approach the High  Court again by filing the present petition,  i.e. Writ Petition 1513 of 2005.  Notice was  issued by the Court and the respondents  appeared.  An affidavit was filed on behalf of  the respondents wherein it was contended that  the writ petitioner could not be said to be  ’aggrieved party’ in view of the fact that he  was graduated from Bombay University and his  name could be registered in the electoral roll.  No other person had made any grievance who was  graduated from other University and obtained  Master Degree or Doctoral Degree from Bombay  University and was denied enrolment of his name  in the electoral roll.  The petition filed by  the writ petitioner, therefore, was not  maintainable. 6.              The High Court in the impugned order  observed that the writ-petitioner himself was a  graduate who obtained B.A. Degree from the  respondent-University. He could not, therefore,  have any grievance in the matter.  The  contention of the writ petitioner was that the  respondent-University was wrongly interpreting  the word ’Graduate’ in a restricted manner and  several other persons who were not graduated  from respondent-University, but obtained Master  or Doctoral Degree from the University were not  enrolled in the electoral roll. According to  the High Court, since the writ-petitioner was  not ’aggrieved party’, the petition was liable  to be dismissed and accordingly, it was  dismissed. The said order is challenged by the  writ petitioner in the present appeal. 7.              Notice was issued on February 27, 2006  by this Court and on August 27, 2006, the  Registry was directed to place the matter for

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

hearing on a non-miscellaneous day.  That is  how the matter has been placed before us. 8.              We have heard the learned counsel for  the parties. 9.              The learned counsel for the appellant  submitted that the High Court was wrong in  dismissing the petition on the ground of locus  standi.  The Court ought to have appreciated  that the question was of interpretation of law  and it ought to have decided the issue one way  or the other.  According to the appellant, even  in past, the High Court did not decide the  matter on merits and disposed of his writ  petition as ’infructuous’.  Again the question  has come up and even in future, at every  election, such question will arise. It was,  therefore, submitted that the High Court was  wrong in not deciding the controversy. 10.             The learned counsel for the  respondents, on the other hand, submitted that  the High Court was justified in dismissing the  writ petition on the ground that the petitioner  was not aggrieved person.  The writ petition  was not in the nature of Public Interest  Litigation (PIL) and when the writ-petitioner  himself was graduated from the respondent- University, his name could be there in the  electoral roll. The High Court, hence, refused  to enter into larger question.  The counsel,  however, admitted that there may be certain  persons who might have been graduated from  other Universities and obtained Master Degree  or Doctoral Degree from Bombay University and  whose names on that ground might not have been  registered in the electoral roll. But it was  submitted that this is the provision of law,  the University has rightly interpreted it and  refused to register their names. He further  submitted that the constitutional validity or  vires of the provision had not been challenged  by the writ-petitioner. In the light of the  statutory provisions, the University decided  not to register names of persons who were  graduated from other University and no fault  can be found against such action. He,  therefore, submitted that the appeal deserves  to be dismissed. 11.             Having heard the rival contentions of  the parties, in our opinion, it cannot be said  that the High Court was wrong in dismissing the  writ petition filed by the writ-petitioner- appellant herein.  It is expressly stated by  the High Court that the writ-petitioner  obtained B.A. Degree from Bombay University.   Thus, the writ-petitioner was graduated from  the respondent-University. His name, therefore,  can be registered in the electoral roll for  electing members of Senate.  He was not,  therefore, an ’aggrieved party’.  The writ  petition was not in the form of PIL and it  cannot be said that the High Court ought to  have decided the question. To that extent,  therefore, the grievance voiced by the writ- petitioner is not justifiable. 12.             It is, no doubt, equally true that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

there may be some persons who might have  obtained Graduate Degree from Universities  other than the respondent-University and Master  Degree or Doctoral Degree from Bombay  University. According to the interpretation  adopted by the respondent-University, their  names cannot be registered under the Act.  We  have, therefore, to consider whether the action  of the University is illegal, contrary to law  or otherwise objectionable. The learned counsel  for the respondents, in this connection,  referred to the relevant provisions of the Act.   Section 2 defines certain terms and the word  ’University’ is defined in Clause (36) of  Section 2 which reads thus;         "University" means any of the  universities mentioned in the  Schedule.

13.             The Schedule to the Act specifies  Universities. The term ’Graduate’ is not  defined in the Act. Section 3 provides for  "Incorporation of Universities".  Section 6  deals with "Jurisdiction and Admission to  Privileges of University". Section 24  enumerates Authorities of the University.  One  of the Authorities of the University is  "Senate".  Section 25 declares that Senate  shall be the Principal Authority for all  financial estimates and budgetary  appropriations and for providing social  feedback to the University on current and  future academic programmes and also provides  for its constitution. Section 26 lays down  functions and duties of Senate.  Chapter XI  relates to Enrolment, Degrees and Convocation.   Section 99 is a material provision and provides  for Registered Graduates.  Sub-section (1) of  the said section is material and reads thus;      "(1) Subject to the provisions of  sub-section (2), the following persons  shall be entitled to have their names  entered in the register of registered  graduates or deemed to be registered  graduates, maintained by the  university, namely:-

(a)     who are graduates of the  university;

(b)     who are graduates of the present  university from which  corresponding new university is  established; Provided. . .  

       (2)     . . .     . . .     . . .     .."                                          (emphasis supplied)

14.             Section 100 enables the Chancellor to  remove name of any person from register of  graduates. 15.             Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of  Section 99, in our opinion, is clear and  unambiguous. It specifically and unequivocally

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

declares that only those persons who are  ’Graduates of the University’ are entitled to  have their names entered in the register of  registered graduates.  As already observed  earlier, University means any university  mentioned in the Schedule.  It is not even the  case of the writ-petitioner either before the  High Court or before us that name of any person  who has graduated from the University as  defined in Section 2(36) of the Act has not  been included in the register. It, therefore,  cannot be said that the interpretation of the  respondent-University is unwarranted, illegal  or contrary to statutory provisions. In our  opinion, the learned counsel for the  respondent-University is also right in  contending that the constitutional validity of  statutory provision has not been challenged by  the writ-petitioner and, as such, the Court is  called upon only to interpret the provision as  it stands treating it to be valid and intra  vires. If it is so, the limited controversy  before the Court is whether the University is  right in interpreting the relevant provision of  law in Section 99 read with Section 2 of the  Act. 16.             Learned counsel for the appellant,  however, submitted that the repealed statute,  namely, the Bombay Universities Act, 1974,  treated persons who had obtained Graduate  Degree from other university, but Master Degree  or Doctoral Degree from Bombay University as  eligible and qualified to be included in the  register of registered graduates of the  University.  In our opinion, however, the above  circumstance, instead of supporting the writ- petitioner may support the respondents as it  can be said that though there was such  provision in the previous Act, the Legislature  consciously and deliberately departed from it  and the registration was restricted to those  who must have graduated from the University.   The said contention, therefore, cannot take the  case of the writ-petitioner further. 17.             It was then contended that in several  other Universities, such persons who had  obtained Graduate Degree from other  universities, but obtained Master degree or  Doctoral Degree from those Universities have  been treated as eligible to get their names  registered in the register of graduates. Even  on that ground, the impugned action of the  respondent-University cannot be said to be  legal or proper. We are afraid, we cannot  uphold the contention of the writ-petitioner.   If is for the Legislature to provide for  registration of graduates and in absence of any  challenge to the constitutional validity, we  have to give literal interpretation to the  expressions used and terms defined in the  statute book. 18.             As already noted by us, considering  Section 99 in the light of Clause (36) of  Section 2 of the Act, it cannot be said that  the University was wrong or had committed any

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

error in interpreting the provision and in  depriving any person of his right.  If it is  so, no grievance can be made against such  interpretation. We, therefore, see no substance  in the argument raised by the writ petitioner. 19.             For the foregoing reasons, the appeal  deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly,  dismissed. On the facts and in the  circumstances of the case, however, there shall  be no order as to costs.