HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W. P. No. 18557 of 2009 DATED: 07.09.2009 Between: K. Ramakrishna Reddy ..... PETITIONER AND 1. The Vice Chancellor 2. The Dean 3. The Chairperson And another .....RESPONDENT(S) O R D E R:- The petitioner, who is a student of University of Hyderabad asserts that he is pursuing Ph.D in the Centre for Study of Social Exclusion and Inclusive Policy. According to him, the students whose names have been registered alone are permitted to participate in the General Body Meeting of the University, and those whose names are included in the electoral list alone are allowed to contest for the post of member of the Election Committee. While so, as per the directions of the Supreme Court, a Lingdoh Committee was appointed for conducting elections to the Universities of India, and as per recommendation No.6.5.6, the candidate shall have one opportunity to contest for the post of office bearer and two opportunities to contest for the post of Executive Member. The petitioner states that the 4th respondent, who had contested unsuccessfully for the post of President in the 2007-08, filed nomination to the post of President again in the election conducted for the year 2009-2010 contrary to the recommendations of Lingdoh Committee. Therefore, he states that he made representation dated 29.08.2009 to the Grievance and Redressal Cell, Students’ Union Election 2009-2010 stating the 4th respondent is not entitled to contest election to the post of President. Now, it is his grievance that the Election Committee permitted the nomination of the 4th respondent for election to the post of President to the Students’ Union Elections, contrary to the recommendations of the Lingdoh Committee. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent Nos.1 to 3 have violated recommendation No. 6.5.6 of the Lingdoh Committee, which was appointed by the Supreme Court vide its Record of Proceedings in SLP No. 24295 of 2004, for making recommendations for conducting elections to the Universities of India, by accepting the nomination of the 4th respondent for election to the post of President to the Students’ Union Elections. The learned Standing Counsel for University of Hyderabad appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 submitted that the process of elections has already commenced today. As can be seen from the averments made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and the stand taken by the respondents, the petitioner is aggrieved by the acceptance of nomination of the 4th respondent for election to the post of President to the Students Union, and according to him, the acceptance of the nomination of the 4th respondent is contrary to the recommendations of the Lyngdoh Committee. However, the learned Standing Counsel for the University of Hyderabad states that election process has already commenced. Since the matter relates to elections, and having regard to the fact that the election process has already commenced, the remedy of the petitioner is to approach the civil court/election tribunal after the declaration of result, but this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not adjudicate disputes arising out of elections. Hence, the writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the action of the respondents in nominating the 4th respondent to the post of President to the Students’ Union Elections, in a competent civil Court/election tribunal, if he so chooses. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 07.09.2009 bcj