Holding

Clause (a) of sub‑section (1) of Section 99 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 unequivocally limits registration to persons who are graduates of the university, rendering the petitioner's grievance untenable.

Summary

The petitioner, a graduate of the University of Mumbai who also held an LL.M., filed a writ petition seeking inclusion of his name in the electoral roll for Senate elections, arguing that the term “Graduate of the University” under the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 should include persons who earned a postgraduate degree from the university even if their undergraduate degree was from another institution. The University interpreted the term narrowly, limiting registration to those who obtained a graduate degree from the university itself. The High Court dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioner was not an aggrieved party, as he already qualified as a graduate of the university. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the statutory language and held that Section 99(1)(a) is clear and unambiguous, permitting only actual graduates of the university to be entered in the register, and that the university’s interpretation is lawful and intra‑vires. Consequently, the petitioner lacked locus standi and the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner had locus standi to challenge the university's interpretation of ‘Graduate of the University’.
Whether the term ‘Graduate of the University’ in Section 99(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 includes persons who hold a postgraduate degree from the university but an undergraduate degree from another university.
Whether the university's restrictive interpretation of the statutory provision is legal and intra‑vires.

Legislation cited

Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994s. 100, s. 2(36), s. 25, s. 99(1)(a), s. 99(2)

Subjects

electoral rolluniversity senatestatutory interpretationlocus standigraduate definitionMaharashtra Universities Actpublic interest litigationregistration of graduates

Judgment

[2008) 2 S.C.R. 297

ANAND SHARADCHANDRA OKA A
v.
UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 967 of 2008)
FEBRUARY 4, 2008
B
(C.K. THAKKER AND ALTAMAS KABIR, JJ.)

- Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994:
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
't
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 F=
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 r
respondent-University could not be denied registration
c only on the ground that he had not obtained Graduate r
Degree from the said University.
i:-
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 t- •
registered· in the electoral roll, and no person who had
obtained a Graduate Degree from other university and .~ !
r-
Master Degree or Doctoral Degree from the respondent- '
University made any grievance. The High Court dismissed ..1;
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
-~
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 the Senate of the
University. In view of Section 25 of the Act "Senate" of the
D
University is the Principal Authority for all financial
estimates and budgetary appropriations and for providing
..... social feedback to the University on current and future
academic programmes and also provides for its
constitution. [Para 4 and 13] [301-B; 304-F, G]
E
~ 2.3 Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 99 of the
Act 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. It F
was not even the case of the writ-petitioner either before
the High Court or before this Court that name of any
person who has graduated from the University as defined
in Section 2(36) of the Act has not been included in the
register. Considering Section 99 in the light of Clause (36)
G
of Section 2 of the Act, it cannot be said that the University
----'(
was wrong or it committed any error ir:i interpreting the
provision and deprived ·any person of his right. Thus, no
grievance can be made against such ·interpretation.
[Para 15 and 18] [305-C, 0, E; 306-E, F]
H

..
~-
300 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.

A 2.4 It is significant to note that if the Bombay ~_,,;-

Universities Act, 1974 treated persons, who had obtained
Graduate Degree from other university but Master Degree
or Doctoral Degree from Bombay University, as eligible
and qualified to be includ~d as registered graduates of the
B University, the Legislature consciously and deliberately
departed from it while enacting the 1994 Act and restricted
the registration to those who must have graduated from ~
-~
the University. [Para 16] [305-G, H; 306-A, BJ
2.5 It is for the Legislature to provide for registration
c of graduates and in absence of any challenge to the
constitutional validity, literal interpretation has to be given
to the expressions used and terms defined in the statute
book. [Para 17] [306-D, E] '
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION : CivilAppeal No. 967
D of 2008.

From the final Judgment and Order dated 8.8.2005 of the
High Court of Judicature at Bombay in W.P. No. 1513/2005
Vinay Navare and Naresh Kumar for the Appellant.
·"'*
E
Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure and S.S. Shinde for the
Respondents.
r
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
C.K. THAKKER, J. 1. Leave granted.
F
2. The present appeal is filed against final judgment and J-.-
order dated August 8, 2005 passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 1513 of 2005. By the
impugned order, the High Court dismissed the petition on the
ground that the writ petitioner could not be said to be 'aggrieved
G party'. In view of the said finding, the High Court did not consider
it appropriate to express any opinion on the question raised in ,.......
the petition.
3. Shortly stated the facts of the case are that the first t
respondent is University of Mumbai. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3
H
ANAND SHARADCHANDRA OKA v. UNIVERSITY OF 301
-...... MUMBAI & ORS. [THAKKER, J.]

are Vice Chancellor and Registrar respectively of respondent A
No.1, whereas Respondent No. 4 is the State of Maharashtra.
The University is governed by the provisions of the
Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to
as 'the Act').
8
4. On August 2, 1999, the respondent University issued a
notification calling for applications from registered graduates
in the prescribed form for getting their names registered in the
electoral roll for electing ten members in the Senate of the
University. The writ-petitioner who holds LL.M. degree of the 1

University apP,lied for registering his name in the said roll. The C
respondent-University, however, addressed a letter to the writ
petitioner, calling upon him to submit his Bachelor Degree
Certificate to ascertain whether he had obtained Graduate
Degree from the said University. According to the writ petitioner,
if a person has obtained· Master Degree or Doctoral Degree Q
from the University, his name also should be included in the
electoral roll and he cannot be denied registration only on the
ground that he had not obtained Graduate Degree from the
University. The writ petitioner, in the circumstances, approached
the High Court by filing Writ Petition No. 436 of 2000 challenging E
the interpretation placed by the respondent-University on the
term 'Graduate'. The High Court found prima facie substance
in argument of the writ petitioner and admitted the petition by
issuing Rule nisi. But, by the time the writ petition came up for
final hearing, elections were over and the High Court did not F.
think it fit to express any opinion on the question of law raised
by the writ petitioner and disposed it of observing that the petition
had become 'infructuous'. The question of law, however, was
kept open.
5. Once again when the elections were scheduled to be G
held, the question of interpretation of the word 'Graduate' came
up for consideration. The writ-petitioner addressed a letter to
the University on October 25, 2004 to re-consider the legal issue.
The respondent-University, however, disregarded the writ
petitioner's request and issued a notification on April 22,.2005 H
-t
302 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.

~-..-

A for election of Senate. It insisted to register names of those
persons who had obtained Graduate Degree from the University.
The writ petitioner, therefore, was constrained to approach the
High Court again by filing the present petition, i.e. Writ Petition
1513 of 2005. Notice was issued by the Court and the
B respondents appeared. An affidavit was filed on behalf of the
respondents wherein it was contended that the writ petitioner
could not be said to be 'aggrieved party' in view of the fad that i..,,
he was graduated from Bombay University and his name could
be registered in the electoral roll. No other person had made
c any grievance who was graduated from other University and
obtained Master Degree or Doctoral Degree from Bombay
University and was denied enrolment of his name in the electoral
roll. The petition filed by the writ petitioner, therefore, was not
maintainable.

D 6. The High Court in the impugned order observed that
the writ-petitioner himself was a. graduate who obtained B.A.
Degree from the respondent-University. He could not, therefore,
have any grievance in the matter. The contention of the writ
petitioner was that the respondent-University was wrongly
E interpreting the word 'Graduate' in a restricted manner and
several other persons who were not graduated from respondent-
University, but obtained Master or Doctoral Degree from the
University were not enrolled in the electoral roll. According to
the High Court, since the writ-petitioner was not 'aggrieved party',
the petition was liable to be dismissed and accordingly, it was
F J.-:r
dismissed. The said order is challenged by the writ petitioner in
the present appeal.
7. Notice was issued on February 27, 2006 by this Court
and on August 27, 2006, the Registry was directed to place the
G matter for hearing on a non-miscellaneous day. That is how the
matter has been placed before us. ,...... .
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
H High Court was wrong in dismissing the petition on the ground
ANAND SHARADCHANDRA OKA v. UNIVERSITY OF 303
MUMBAI & ORS. [THAKKER, J.]

of locus standi. The Court ought to have appreciated that the A
question was of interpretation of law and it ought to have decided
the issue one way or the other. According to the appellant, even
in past, the High Court did not decide the matter on merits and
disposed of his writ petition as 'infructuous'. Again the question
has come up and even in future, at every election, such question ~
will arise. It was, therefore, submitted that the High Court was
wrong in not deciding the controversy.
10. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other
hand, submitted that the High Court was justified in dismissing
the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner was not C
aggrieved person. The writ petition was not in the nature of
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and when the writ-petitioner
himself was graduated from the respondent-University, his name
could be there in the electoral roll. The High Court, h.ence, refused
to enter into larger question. The counsel, however, admitted D
that there may be certain persons who might have been
graduated from other Universities and obtained Master Degree
or Doctoral Degree from Bombay University and whose names
on that ground might not have been registered in the electoral
roll. But it was submitted that this is the provision of law, the E
I
' University has rightly interpreted it and refused to register their
names. He further submitted that the constitutional validity or
vires of the provision had not been challenged by the writ-
petitioner. In the light of the statutory provisions, the University
decided not to register names of persons who were graduated F
from other University and no fault can be found against such
action. He, therefore, submitted that the appeal deserve! to be
dismissed.
11. Having heard the rival contentions of the parties, in our
opinion, it cannot be said that the High Court was wrong in G
dismissing the writ petition filed by the writ-petitioner-appellant
herein. It is expressly stated by the High Court that the writ-
petitioner obtained B.A. Degree from Bombay University. Thus,
the writ-petitioner was graduated from the respondent-University.
His name, therefore, can be registered in the electoral roll for H

II
304 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2ooa12 s.~.R.

A electing members of Senate. He was not, therefore, an
'aggrieved 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.
B 12. It is, no doubt, equally true that there may be some
persons who might have obtained Graduate Degree from
Universities other than the respondent-University and Master ·
Degree or Doctoral Degree from Bombay University. According
to the interpretation adopted by the respondent-University, their
·C names cannot be registered under the Act. We have, therefore,
to consider whether the action of the University is illegal, contrary
to law or otherwise objectionable. The learned counsel for the
respondents, in this connection, referred to the relevant
provisions of the Act. Section 2 defines certain terms and the
D word ~·university' is defined in Clause (36) of Section 2 which
reads thus;
"University" means any of the universities mentioned in
the Schedule.
E 13. The Schedule to the Act specifies Universities. The
term 'Graduate' is not defined in the Act. Section 3 provides for
"Incorporation of Universities". Section 6 deals with "Jurisdiction
and Admission to Privileges of University". Section 24
enumerates Authorities of the University. One of the Authorities
F of the University is "Senate". Section 25 declares that Senate
shall be the Principal Authority for all financial estimates and
budgetary appropriations and for providing social feedback to
the University on current and future academic programmes and
also provides for its constitution. Section 26 lays down functions
G and duties of Senate. Chapter XI relates to Enrolment, Degrees
and Convocation. Section 99 is a material provision and
provides for Registered Graduates. Sub-section (1) of the said
section is material and reads thus;
"(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), the
H following persons shall be entitled to have their names
ANAND SHARADCHANDRA OKA ~ UNIVERSITY OF 305

• MUMBAI & ORS. [THAKKER, J.]

entered in the register of registered graduates or deemed A
to be registered graduates, maintained by the university,
namely:-
(a) who are graduates of the university;
(b) who are graduates of the present university from B,
which corresponding new university is established;
Provided ...

(2)
(emphasis supplied)
c
14. Section 100 enables the Chancellor to remove name
of any person from register of graduates .
.15. Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 99, in our
opinion, is clear and unambiguous. It specifically and
unequivocally declares that only those persons who are D
'Graduates of the University' are entitled to have their names •
entered in the register of registered graduates. As already
observed earlier, University means any university mentioned in
the Schedule. It is not even the case of the writ-petitioner either
before the High Court or before us that name of any person who E
has graduated from the University as defined in Section 2(36)
of the Act has not been included in the register. It, therefore,
cannot be said that the interpretation of the respondent-University
is unwarranted, illegal or contrary to statutory provisions. In our·
opinion, the learned C'ounsel for the respondent-University is also F
right in contending that the constitutional validity of statutory
provision has not been challenged by the writ-petitioner and, as
such, the Court is called.upon only to interpret the provision as it
stands treating it to be valid and intra vires. If it is so, the limited
controversy before the Court is whether the University is right in
interpreting the relevant provision of law in Section 99 read with G
Section 2 of the Act.
16. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, submitted
\hatthe repealed statute, namely, the Bombay Universities Act,
1974, treated persons who had obtained Graduate Degree from H

\
306 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R. "

. Aother university, but Master Degree or Doctoral Degree from
Bombay University as eligible and qualified to be included in
the register of registered graduates of the University. In our
opinion, however, the above circumstance, instead of supporting
the writ-petitioner may support the respondents as it can be
B said that though. there was such provision in the previous Act,
the Legislature consciously and deliberately departed from it
and the registration was restricted to those who must have i ...
graduated from the University.. ·~he said contention, therefore,
cannot take the case of the writ-petitioner further. ··
C 17. It was then contended that in several other Universities,
such persons·who had obtained Graduate Degree from other
universities, but obtained Master degree or Doctoral Degree
from those Universities have been treated as eligible to get their
names registered in· the register of graduates. Even on that
D ground, the impugned action of the respondent-Universityc~nnot
be said to be legal or proper. We are afraid, we cannot uphold
the contention of the writ-petitioner. If is for the Legislature to
provide for registration of graduates and in absence of any
challenge to the constitutional validity, we have to give literal
E interpretation to the expressions used and terms defined in the ,._,'
statute book.
¥-
.
18. As already noted by us, considering Section 99 in the
light of Clause (36) of Section 2 of the Act, it cannot be said that
the University was wrong or had committed any error in
F interpreting the provision and in depriving any person of his right.
If it is so, no grievance can be made against such interpretation.
We, therefore, see no substance in the argument raised by the
writ petitioner.
G 19. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal deserves to be
dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed. On the facts and in
the circumstances of the case, however, there shall be no order )-"" ,
as to costs.
R.P. Appeal dismissed.
H