IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE Dated this the 8"' Day of September, 2009 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE MOI-IAN WRIT PETITION No. 25271 'V, T T BE I WEENA Dr. Nidarsh D. Hegde S/0 Diwar Hegde Aged about 44 years Member Senate Rajiv Gandhi. Zlniversity 'of. V Health aScienoe:3;..Ka13nataka_ _ <31 Professor of DraJ:V".3131'geVr-y = A.B. Shetty Memorial.;insi:i.tiite"of Dental Scie'r1.Ces.4 D ' " V Deraiikatte Mangialore V " V Petitioner -féfiyv M/ s. A. Nagarajappa & Associates, Vt Advocates) '1'he':.RajiV Gandhi University of Health Sciences in Karnataka _ '(IV T Block, Jayanagar ' "Bangalore -- 560 041 Represented by its Registrar 2 The Vice -- Chancellor Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences in Karnataka IV T Block, Jayanagar Bangalore -- 560 041 3 The Returning Officer for the Election to the Senate of RGUHS and Joint Registrar of C0~0p€1'at1V6 Societies Karnataka UCDP} Bangaiore. 4"' T I3lb~el< Jayanagar _ g_' V 'R _ Bangalore -- 560 041 ' fl.,.Respondents (By N B fc-rVV'VState; Sri l§1jrl?<a.nieshiC'oun_sel forfiri' and R2} This Writ'I?et.ition'i«s filed under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution ofi1rIdia,v._praying to quash the letter dated 10~ 8-2009 issued by"vtheresj:}--ondent--1 vide Annexure~G and the Notification C"-dated '._1O~:84i?.0O9 issued by the Respondent published by the re'sVpondent--2 marked at Annexure--H. \\ Ag petition coming on for orders this day, the 7 Court the following: ORDER
‘petitioner has questioned the letter dated
‘:f10.U8.,.20vC’9 Vide Annexure–G and the notification dated
— 1’A(;”‘.C’8.A:A2.O{)9 Vide AnneXure–H to the writ petition.
M
2. Virtually, the petitioner is praying for quashing the
calendar of events issued by the first respondent–UniVer.s_ity for
conducting Senate elections.
The petitioner is a Senate . member ._of.”
respondent-University. According torhirn,
the month of July 2010. On the szaidigronnd. ]§¢£:r1;3:’i¢r
has prayed for quashing the calendar of. the.’
first respondent–Universi_ty for cond acting the”Senat_e§ elections.
The document at Anne$’iure;_C} the turn of
membership of the petitioner V ‘exp_irled_ l.11.06.2009 and
Senate 3;yas._ I’€0C)01*1s’¢ifiE4t;t1″.eCl~.011.__l2.U6.20O9 and it was decided to
have elections. ‘according to the first respondent—
University’, the of office of the petitioner has expired.
lBe._.that as it may, it is brought to the notice of the
AC’zou.r_t Advocate on both sides that the date of
_ polling 1′;-‘already over on 07.09.2009. However, the counting
‘ ofxvotes islscheduled to take place on 09.09.2009. On the very
j’date.. results will be declared.
1″‘
Since the Polling has already taken place, this Court
does not find any ground to interfere in the election process. It
is by now well settled that the election process”‘canrloi,__hbe
interfered with after publishing of calendar of _ever_:1’ts.’ .
4. In View of the above; this Court– to
interfere with the impugned r1o.tiflcatio.nt”relatingitot ‘c3levr;ds21r ‘oft
events. Accordingly, the pefisgctbn’ fails._V;tn£_”i.: uscime
dismissed. It is open fo’r*.t_he initiate action under
Section 59 of the Rajiv Health Sciences
sd/–~
…..