ANAND SHARADCHANDRA OKA versus UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 2 S.C.R. 297 · Decided: 04-02-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. THAKKER · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-
't • 
[2008) 2 S.C.R. 297 
ANAND SHARADCHANDRA OKA 
v. 
UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 967 of 2008) 
FEBRUARY 4, 2008 
(C.K. THAKKER AND ALTAMAS KABIR, JJ.) 
Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994: 
A 
B 
ss.2(36) and 99(1)(a) rlw s.25- University of Mumbai 7 
Electoral roll for electing members of Senate - Registration C 
of 'Graduates of the University' in the electoral roll - Writ 
Petition by a graduate as also post-graduate of Mumbai 
University contending that persons holding graduate degree 
from other university but post-graduate or doctoral degree from 
Mumbai University should also be made eligible to be D 
registered in the electoral roll- Held: Clause (a) of sub-section 
(1) of s.99 is clear and unambiguous - It specifically and 
unequivocally declares that only those persons who are 
'Graduates of the University' are entitled to have their names 
entered in the register of registered graduates - Interpretation E 
to the term 'Graduate of the University' given by the University 
cannot be said to be unwarranted, illegal or contrary to statutory 
provisions - Writ petitioner being a graduate of Mumbai 
University and eligible to be registered in the electoral roll was 
not an 'aggrieved party' - Constitution of India - Article 226 -
F 
Writ petitioner not 'aggrieved party' - Petition not filed under 
PIL - Maintainability of - Practice and Procedure. 
Interpretation of Statutes: 
Interpretation of statutory provisions - Held:· in the , G 
. absence of any challenge to constitutional validity, literal 
interpretation has to be given to expressions used and terms 
defined in the statute book. 
The appellant, a graduate as also post-graduate from 
297 
H 
298 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 2 S.C.R. 
A respondent No.1 University, filed a writ petition 
questioning the notification of the University calling for 
applications from those who had obtained Graduate 
Degree from the respondent-University to get their names 
registered in the electoral roll for electing members in the 
B Senate of the University. The appellant challenged the 
interpretation placed by the University on the term 
'Graduate of the University' and .contended that a person 
with Master Degree or Doctoral Degree from the 
respondent-University could not be denied registration 
c only on the ground that he had not obtained Graduate 
Degree from the said University. 
The respondents resisted the writ petition as not 
maintainable contending that the appellant could not be 
said to be 'aggrieved party' as he was a Graduate from 
·o the respondent-University and his name could he 
registered· in the electoral roll, and no person who had 
obtained a Graduate Degree from other university and 
Master Degree or Doctoral Degree from the respondent-
University made any grievance. The High Court dismissed 
E the writ petition holding that the writ petitioner was not 
'aggrieved party'. 
In the instant appeal filed by the writ petitioner, it was 
contended for the· appellant that the High Court erred in 
dismissing the writ petition on the ground of locus standi 
F and not deciding the question of law involving 
interpretation of the relevant provision. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. It cannot be said that the High Court was 
G ·wrong in dismissing the writ petition filed by the writ-
petitioner-appellant. It is expressly stated by the High 
Court that the writ-petitioner obtained B.A. Degree from 
Bombay Universi'ty. Thus, the writ-petitioner was a 
graduate from the respondent-University. His name, 
H therefore, can be registered in the electoral roll for electing 
F= 
~; 
~ 
~ ,_ 
r 
r 
i:-
t-• 
.~ ! r-
' 
1; .. ' 
-~ 
ANAND SHARADCHANDRA OKA v. UNIVERSITY OF 
299 
MUMBAI & ORS. 
_,. > 
members of Senate. He was not, therefore, an 'aggrieved A 
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. [Para 11] 
[303-G; 304-A] 
B 
~ 
2.1 _It cannot be said that the interpretation of the 
... 
~ 
respondent-University to the term 'Graduates of the 
University' as occurring in s.99(1 )(a) of the Maharashtra 
Universities Act, 1994 is unwarranted, illegal or contrary 
to statutory provisions. [Para 15] [305-E] 
c 
2.2 Section 99 of the Act is a material provision and 
provides for Registered Graduates, who comprise the 
electoral roll to elect the members in th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.