IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2011 / 14TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 38294 of 2010(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- TONY RAPHY, S/O.RAPHY ANTONY,AGED 20 YEARS, 2ND YEAR B.TECH STUDENT (ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC ENGINEERING) SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CUSAT PO, KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA SRI.K.I.SAGEER RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, CUSAT PO, KOCHI-22, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. 2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, CUSAT PO, KOCHI-22. 3. THE RETURNING OFFICER (REGISTRAR) ELECTION TO THE SENATE, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, CUSAT PO, KOCHI-22. ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAI,SC,COCHI U FOR R1 & R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 38294 OF 2010 ===================== Dated this the 4th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T Ext.P1 is the notification issued by the University notifying election to the Senate and Academic Council of the respondent University. Petitioner being a B.Tech student in the Engineering College of the University submitted Ext.P2 nomination offering himself as a candidate in the election to the Senate. In the nomination paper, he furnished his name, address and his number in the electoral roll. The nomination paper also contained details of the proposer, seconder, consent of the candidate, signature of the candidate and date. Ext.P3 is the electoral roll, which shows that the petitioner's name figures at Sl.No.3212. 2. However, when by Ext.P6, the list of candidates was published by the University, petitioner's name was not included. He submitted Ext.P7 representation, but there was no response. It is in these circumstances, he filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the 3rd respondent to accept Ext.P2 nomination paper and include his name in the list of candidates validly nominated for election to the Senate, notified as per Ext.P1. WPC No. 38294/10 :2 : 3. Counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 1 and 3 in which it is stated that, on receipt of the nomination, in terms of the provisions contained in Statute 31 of the CUSAT Election Statutes, the Returning Officer scrutinized the nomination papers. It is stated that the Returning officer rejected the nomination paper of the petitioner with the following endorsement: “Rejected as the name is wrongly written in the nomination.” 4. Therefore, having regard to the above, the only issue that arises for consideration is whether the rejection of the petitioner's nomination for the reason that his name was wrongly written in the paper calls for interference. 5. As rightly pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner relying on the judgments of this Court in Santhosh v. Joint Registrar (1994(2) KLT 141) and Suresh v. High Court Advocates' Association (2000(1) KLT 652), the nomination submitted in an election can be rejected only on substantial grounds and not on trivial ones. In this case, there is no dispute regarding the identity of the candidate and the only objection is that the name has been wrongly written in the nomination paper. WPC No. 38294/10 :3 : This contention has been raised by the respondents, on the basis that, in Ext.P2 nomination, while writing the name of the petitioner as Tony Raphy, the letter 'T' is written in such a manner that it is capable of being read as 'J'. In my view, if the name as written in Ext.P2 nomination form was read along with his number in the electoral roll and if a comparison was made with the entries in Ext.P3 electoral roll, the Returning Officer could not have concluded that the name of the petitioner has been wrongly written. In any case, on the pleadings, I am satisfied that the rejection of the petitioner's nomination for the aforesaid reason is not on any substantial ground, but only on a trivial ground. 6. Therefore, I am inclined to think that the ground on which the nomination of the petitioner has been rejected is illegal, and for that reason, I set aside the same and direct the 3rd respondent to accept Ext.P2 nomination submitted by the petitioner, include him in the list of candidates and allow him to contest the election to the Senate of the respondent University. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp