1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.2855 OF 2011 (DR. RAJENDRA RAMCHANDRARAO JANE..VS..RTM NAGPUR UNIVERSITY & OTH.) WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2856 OF 2011 (DR. RATNAKAR RAMAJI DAHAT..VS..RTM NAGPUR UNIVERSITY & OTH.) WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2857 OF 2011 (DR. VINAYAK SHRIRAM IRPATE..VS..RTM NAGPUR UNIVERSITY & OTH.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. A.M. Sudame, Advocate for Petitioners. Mr. B.G.Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. P.B.Patil, Advocate for Respondents. CORAM : S.A.BOBDE & M.N.GILANI, JJ. DATE : OCTOBER 10, 2011. Leave to join “Chancellor, RTM Nagpur University” as party respondent. The amendment to be carried out forthwith. Mrs. Bharti Dangre, learned Additional Government Pleader waives service on behalf of the newly added respondent. Heard. The petitioners have challenged notification dated 21.04.2011 declaring the petitioners 'defeated' after recounting of votes in the election for the posts of Head of Departments in affiliated colleges on the Board of Studies. Shri Patil, learned counsel for the respondents points out that the petitioner has already raised a dispute in this regard before the Chancellor of the University under Section 108 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994. Section 108 reads as under : 2 “108. Questions regarding interpretation and disputes regarding constitution of the University authority or body, etc. : If any question arises regarding the interpretation of any provision of this Act, or of any Statute, Ordinance, Regulation or Rule, or whether a person has been duly elected or appointed or nominated or co-opted as or is entitled to be a member of any authority or body of the university, the matter may, be referred, on petition by any person or body directly affected, or suo motu by the Vice-Chancellor to the Chancellor, who shall after taking such advice as he thinks necessary, decide the question, and his decision shall be final; Provided that, such reference shall be made by the Vice-Chancellor to the Chancellor upon a requisition signed by not less than twenty-five members of the Senate.” It is not disputed by Shri Sudame, learned counsel for the petitioners that such a dispute is pending, however, according to the learned counsel, the section does not empower the Chancellor to go into the question of validity of the election on the ground that the recount does not grant legality. We see no merits in this contention. The section is wide enough to include such a dispute particularly having regard to the words, since Chancellor can decide the question whether a person has been duly elected or nominated or co-opted as or is entitled to be a member or authority of the University. Indeed the petitioner himself is aware of the alternate remedy assuming on the basis that he is entitled to get relief. The petitioner has already availed of an alternate remedy, hence, the petition is dismissed. Mrs. Dangre, learned Additional Government Pleader for the Chancellor states that if an application for early disposal is made it shall be duly considered. JUDGE JUDGE RR..