1. The respondents 11 and 12 in W.P.(C)No.37216 of 2025 filed this writ appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act 1958, challenging the judgment dated 20.02.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in that writ petition.

2. The writ petitioners are students of a private College, by name Fathima Matha National College, Kollam, affiliated to the University of Kerala. They filed W.P.(C)No.37216 of 2025 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs;

                  “1. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any appropriate writ, or order declaring the election process to be conducted by Fathima College for the College Union Election 2025-26 as illegal, null and void for non-compliance with the Lyngdoh Committee recommendations and University notification.

                  2. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any appropriate writ, or order Directing the University of Kerala to conduct a fresh election in Fathima College in accordance with the schedule and norms prescribed under the notification dated 17.09.2025.

                  3. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any appropriate writ, or order Directing the Registrar of the University to conduct an enquiry into the manipulation of attendance records and illegal acceptance of nominations of ineligible candidates.

                  4. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any appropriate writ, or order staying the Election to be held by the 3rd respondent on 10.10.2025 till the disposal of this Writ petition in the interest of Justice”.

3. According to the writ petitioners, the college union election for the academic year 2025 - 2026 in their college is being held in total violation of Ext.P1 University notification dated 17.09.2025. The writ petitioners allege that several students were denied a fair opportunity to file nominations, as the publication of the electoral roll and the scrutiny of the nominations were conducted simultaneously. According to the writ petitioners, the Head of the department, in clear violation of the Lyngdoh Committee Recommendations and the directions issued by the University, undertook the receipt and scrutiny of nomination papers instead of by the duly designated returning officer. Consequently, several valid nominations were arbitrarily rejected, while certain others were accepted without justification.

4. Before the learned Single Judge, on behalf of the 2nd respondent in the writ petition, University of Kerala, a statement dated 09.10.2025 was filed. On behalf of the college, the Principal of the college filed a counter-affidavit dated 01.12.2025 opposing the reliefs sought for. Similarly, the Returning Officer filed a counter affidavit dated 01.12.2025 opposing the reliefs sought for and producing therewith Ext.R4 (a) document.

5. The appellants herein were not initially made parties to the writ petition. They were self-impleaded in the writ petition as per the order in I.A.No.1 of 2026.

6. On 20.02.2026, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition, whereby the Registrar of the University was directed to take an appropriate decision on the complaints so far received by him and take expeditious steps to conduct the election following due process of law. Depending upon the decision to be taken on the complaints, the Registrar was directed either to re- notify the election or to continue the election from any appropriate stage pursuant to the notification dated 17.09.2025. Being aggrieved, the additional respondents 11 and 12, who were self- impleaded in the writ petition filed the present writ appeal.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned counsel for respondents 11 to 14 - writ petitioners, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent College, the learned counsel for the 4th respondent Returning Officer, and the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent University of Kerala.

8. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the writ petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, since all the candidates in the electoral roll were not made parties to the writ petition. The allegation pertaining to the inclusion of persons with less than 75% of attendance in the election process and also unlawful removal of candidates can be agitated only through an election petition. It is ignoring the statutory scheme and also the non-maintainability of the writ petition, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition. The learned counsel further submitted that the Registrar is not an authority under the scheme of the election to decide the complaints pertaining to the election.

9. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent Returning Officer would submit that the preliminary scrutiny of the nominations received alone was done at the department by the respective class teachers and head of departments prior to the final scrutiny by the committee, as the same only ensures better compliance with the Lyngdoh Committee Recommendations, which will be helpful to keep up with the timeline prescribed by the University. Complete transparency was followed throughout the scrutiny process by the committee.

10. The learned counsel for the respondents 11 to 14- writ petitioners would submit that the names of ineligible students are included in the final list in contravention of Lyngdoh Committee Recommendations, and the details of such students are stated in Ext.P2(a) complaint filed before the University on 06.10.2025. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the scrutiny of the nominations was not conducted by a committee constituted as per the Lyngdoh Committee Recommendations, which was approved by the Apex Court.

11. The learned counsel for the University would submit that the University has received Ext.P2(b) e-mail, complaining about the election scheduled in Fathima Matha National College. But the Registrar of the University is not the authority to decide the election disputes. If the election process is now finalised, the members elected can continue till the next academic session.

12. The college union election of 2025-2026 in Fathima Matha National College was notified on 22.09.2025 with the following schedule;

                  “Programme Schedule for College Union Elections 2025-26

                 

13. According to the writ petitioners, the electoral roll was finally published on 03.10.2025 as per the schedule. But several students were denied a fair opportunity to file nominations as the publication of the roll and scrutiny were held simultaneously. It is also the case of the writ petitioners that out of 134 seats, only 119 nominations were accepted, leaving 25 classes unpresented and thereby a substantial section of the student community denied participation in the election process. It is also the contention of the writ petitioners that several candidates with less than 75% attendance, which is a minimum attendance requirement, as per Clause 6.5.5 of the Lyngdoh committee report, were unlawfully allowed to contest. These averments in the writ petition are denied by the Principal as well as the other contesting respondents. According to the contesting respondents, the election process was undertaken strictly in accordance with the university guidelines and as per the schedule of the election notified.

14. On perusal of the pleadings in the writ petition, we are surprised to notice that though the writ petitioners have raised several allegations against the final electoral roll published on 03.10.2025 and contended that several candidates with less than 75% of attendance were allowed to contest the election, the pleadings to that effect are very vague. None of the unqualified candidates allegedly included in the electoral roll were made parties to the writ petition. The pleadings to that effect are conspicuously absent in the writ petition.

15. As far as the importance of the pleadings in the writ petition is concerned, in Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana [1988 (4) SCC 534] the Apex Court held that, when a point which is ostensibly a point of law is required to be substantiated by facts, the party raising the point, if he is the writ petitioner, must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition and if he is the respondent, from the counter affidavit. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of

 such facts is not annexed to the writ petition or to the counter affidavit, as the case may be, the Court will not entertain the point.

                  The Apex Court held further that there is a distinction between a pleading under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and a writ petition or a counter affidavit. While in a pleading, i.e., a plaint or a written statement, the facts and not evidence are required to be pleaded, in a writ petition or in the counter affidavit not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed to it.

16. In Narmada Bachao Andolan v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2011 (7) SCC 639] a Three - Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that, it is a settled proposition of law that a party has to plead its case and produce/adduce sufficient evidence to substantiate the averments made in the petition and in case the pleadings are not complete the Court is under no obligation to entertain the pleas. Pleadings and particulars are required to enable the court to decide the rights of the parties in the trial. Thus, the pleadings are more to help the court in narrowing the controversy involved and to inform the parties concerned to the question(s) in issue, so that the parties may adduce appropriate evidence on the said issue. It is a settled legal proposition that, as a rule, relief not founded on the pleadings should not be granted. Therefore, a decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties. The object and purpose of pleadings and issues is to ensure that the litigants come to trial with all issues clearly defined and to prevent cases from being expanded or grounds from being shifted during trial. If any factual or legal issue, despite having merit, has not been raised by the parties, the court should not decide the same as the opposite counsel does not have a fair opportunity to answer the line of reasoning adopted in that regard. Such a judgment may be violative of the principles of natural justice.

17. As mentioned hereinabove, though several allegations are raised in the writ petition, including the allegation that the Principal and the head of the department deliberately altered the attendance record to accommodate certain favoured students, thereby violating the University's directive that the candidate must possess a minimum of 75% of attendance, there is absolutely no material to substantiate the said allegation. So also a detailed pleading to that effect by at least pointing out one instance of such mal practice or unlawful inclusion of students is not present in the writ petition. From the pleading in the writ petition, it is clear that the writ petitioners have approached this Court with vague allegations, intended to stall the election process undertaken by the college.

18. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar as discussed above, we find that the learned Single Judge failed to consider these aspects while disposing of the writ petition directing the Registrar of the University to take an appropriate decision in the complaints received by him.

                  In the result, the writ appeal is allowed by setting aside the judgment dated 20.02.2026 in W.P.(C)No. 37216 of 2025, and the writ petition stands dismissed.