' Muhammad Khalid Khan, the petitioner was registered as a regular student in M. Phil. (Biology) in Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad in April, 1981. On 27th May, 1981, elections of the office-bearers of the Students' Union of the University were held and as a result of the said elections, one Khalid Javid Beg was elected as President of the Students' Union while the petitioner was elected as the Vice-President of the said Union. Subsequently, on 10th February, 1983, the petitioner became the President of the Students' Union as a result of Students Union elections while Amir Abdullah Chishti, respondent No, 4 became the Vice-President.
2. These elections were, of course, held in accordance with the provisions of the Students' Union Statutes made under section 27 of the Quaid-i-Azam University Act, 1973, hereinafter referred to as Act. Students Union Statutes define the term 'student' and also provide the procedure for holding of elections of office-bearers of the Students Union.
3. On 20th July, 1982 the Vice-Chancellor of the University, in exercise of his emergency powers under section 13(3) of the Act added the following Statute as a Foot Note to the Students Union Statutes : "Definition of Student : Persons who have completed 4 semesters in the M. Phil, or who have been designated as Junior Research Assistants, or Ph. D. Scholars/Senior Research Assistants, shall not be considered to be students within the definition of these Statutes, and shall not be eligible to take part in elections or other activities of the Students' Union."
' This amendment in the Students Union Statutes made by the Vice-Chancellor in exercise of his emergency powers was approved by the Syndicate in its meeting held on 20th December, 1982. It was subsequently also approved by the Senate in its meeting held on 30th June, 1983.
4. The President of the Students' Union of the Quaid-i-Azam University is an ex officio member of various authorities of the University including Senate, Syndicate and Discipline Committee.
5. The petitioner completed his 4th Semester on 9th June, 1983 but he continued functioning as President of the Union. The Registrar of the Quaid-i-Azam University issued a note on 21st June, 1983 to the Committee constituted under section 39 of the Act raising a dispute regarding ex officio membership of the petitioner to the various authorities of the University on the ground that after having completed the 4th Semester, the petitioner ceased to remain student within the meaning of Statute 2 clause (v) of Students' Union Statutes as amended by addition of the aforementioned Foot Note added by the Vice-Chancellor in exercise of his emergency powers. It is provided in section 39 of the Act that if a question arises, whether any person is entitled to be a member of any Authority, the matter shall be referred to a Committee consisting of the Vice-Chancellor, the Judge of the Supreme Court of Pakistan who is a member of the Syndicate and the most senior of the Deans who are members of the Syndicate and the decision of this Committee shall be final and binding. A copy each of the aforementioned note of the Registrar of the Quaid-i-Azam University was endorsed to the petitioner as well as to respondent No,
4. The Committee after hearing the parties concerned took a decision on 16/18th July, 1983 to the effect that the petitioner ceased to be a regular student of the University and was thus disentitled to hold the office of President of the Students' Union for the remaining term and also ceased to be the ex officio member of different authorities of the University.
6. The aforesaid decision of the Committee constituted under section 39 of the Act has been assailed through the present Constitutional Petition.
7. The validity of the impugned decision, dated 16th/18th July, 1983 of the Committee as also that of the decision, dated 20th July, 1982 of the Vice-Chancellor of the Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad whereby Students' Union Statutes`were amended in exercise of emergency powers of the Vice-Chancellor under section 13(3) of the Act has been challenged mainly on the following grounds :
(i) The petitioner having been registered as a regular student in April, 1981 the subsequent amendment in the relevant Statutes which had not the retrospective effect could not adversely affect his case. His predecessor Mr. Khalid Javid Beg continued to be the President of the Union as well as member of the various authorities of the University even after the coming into force of the amendment in the Statutes.
(ii) The Vice-Chancellor purported to act under section 13(3) of the Act on account of emergency although in fact there was no emergency at all and the Vice-Chancellor could not, therefore, invoke the aforesaid provisions.
(iii) The Committee which stands constituted under section 39 of the Act had no jurisdiction to decide as to whether the petitioner was a student or not.
(iv) The petitioner has been allowed extension for one Semester by the Advanced Studies and Research Board under Regulation l(m) of Regulations relating to Admissions, Registrations and Examinations (effective from Spring Semester 1981) and, therefore, he continued to be a student for all intents and purposes, (vl The respondents were estopped from their conduct to question the eligibility of the petitioner as President of the Students Union and as ex officio member of the various authorities of the University inasmuch as even after the amendment of the Statutes relating to the students' union by the Vice- Chancellor in exercise of his emergency powers under section 13(3) of the Act, he continued as office-bearer and President of the Students' Union.
8. No question of retrospectively is involved in the circumstances of the present case because the petitioner completed his 4th Semester on 9th June, 1983. Prior to this date, he continued to be the student of the University for the purposes of the Students Union Statutes as also under Regulations relating to Admissions, Registrations and Examinations in M. Phil. The amendment in the aforesaid Statutes was brought about on 20th July, 1982 while the petitioner, after completing his 4th Semester ceased to be student for the aforesaid purposes on 9th June, 1983 i,e, long after the amendment in the Statutes relating to the Students Union.
9. Regarding the second contention of the petitioner that in fact there was no emergency justifying the invocation of the provisions of section 13(3) of the Act, by the Vice-Chancellor, it may be observed that the Academic Council of the University proposed Regulations relating to Admissions, Registrations and Examinations in M. Phil. To be effective from Spring Semester, 1981. These regulations were approved by the Syndicate on 22nd February, 1981. Regulation 1 (L) of these regulations provides that a student who fails to complete requirements of M. Phil. Degree in the normal period of four Semesters shall cease to be a student of the University. Previously, under the old regulations, a period of four years was allowed for completing the M. Phil. Degree. In view of the aforementioned regulations, the Academic Council in its meeting, dated 7th July, 1982 passed the following resolution : "The Academic Council resolved that a footnote may be added in the Students Union Statutes to the effect that the students/persons who have completed 4 semesters in the M. Phil. Or who have been designated as Junior Research Assistants shall not be considered to be students within the definition of these Statutes and shall not be eligible to take part in Elections or other activities of the Students' Union."
' Pursuant to this resolution, the Vice-Chancellor took action in exercise of his emergency powers under section 13(3) of the Act and made the amendment in the Statutes by adding the Foot-Note in question. Under section 27 of the Act, the draft of Statutes is to be proposed by the Syndicate to the Senate and the power of approving the draft with or without modifications vests in the Senate.
It is not denied that Syndicate and Senate are such bodies whose meeting cannot be convened at a short notice, They meet only periodically and precisely for the same reason emergency powers under section 13(3) of the Act have been conferred on the Vice-Chancellor, ' No doubt in Rehmatullah v. University of the Punjab and others, a learned Single Judge of this Court has been pleased to hold : "Though it is for the Vice-Chancellor to decide if there is an emergency, yet he must have some reasonable evidence or material before him, which is relevant to the purposes of the law and is neither arbitrary, fanciful nor capricious. Moreover, the mere satisfaction or opinion of the authority is not sufficient and no rule or law can oust the power of judicial review by use of any words. There must be such evidence or material before him which may also satisfy any other reasonable person and the Courts shall go into the same, in exercise of their power of judicial review, to verify that no record had been produced to, show what reasons or evidence weighed with the mind of the Vice- Chancellor and no circumstances explained. Rather, the fact that the same situation continued for about eight years shows conclusively that it was, if at all, a permanent need." in Intra-Court Appeal against the aforementioned judgment of this Court a Division Bench in its judgment reported as PLD 19K. Lah. 729 has been pleased to observe : "The Vice-Chancellor has been given the power to perform the prescribed act of the Officer, authority or body whatever it may be, including the act of preparing the regulations or initiation of a matter. The power to take action is, however, dependent on the existence of emergency which in his opinion requires immediate action. Thus, emergency as a matter of fact and not opinion has to be in existence and then the question is to be asked whether immediate action is required to be taken or not. In the instant case no reason or basis existed to act for the Academic Council and the Regulations were thus framed by the Vice Chancellor incompetently and in disregard of the provision of the law, the faithful observance of which was one of his bounden duty. It was not a1 case of bad faith, in fact even the respondents have not alleged so but a case of defeating the law itself."
' In the circumstances of the above case cited as precedent, the Vice-Chancellor of the Punjab University purported to act in exercise of emergency powers for the Academic Council although the said Council was in existence and available at all times. The circumstances of the under consideration case are, however, different. In the present case, the Vice-Chancellor acted pursuant to a resolution passed by the Academic Council. He invoked his emergency powers for making a Statute which could normally be proposed by the Syndicate and approved by the Senate. The said two authorities, as already observed, were not readily available. The said authorities, however, subsequently accorded their respective approval to whatever was done by the Vice-Chancellor in exercise of his emergency powers. It cannot, therefore, be said that in fact there was no emergency and no immediate action was required to be taken by the Vice-Chancellor in exercise of his powers under section 13 (3) of the Act.
10. As regards the jurisdiction of the Committee constituted under section 39 of the Act, it is clearly provided in this section that if a question arises about the entitlement of a person to his membership of any authority of the University, the matter has to be referred to this Committee and the decision of this Committee would be final and binding. In the circumstances of the present case, there arose a dispute about the ex officio membership of the petitioner of various authorities of the University including the Senate and Syndicate. The Committee, therefore, after hearing the petitioner and all others concerned in the matter found that since the petitioner after completion of his 4th Semester ceased to be a student for the purposes of Students' Union Statutes, therefore, he no more remained a President of Students' Union as only a regular student could be the President of the Union. Consequently he also ceased to be the ex officio member of different authorities of the University. The decision arrived at by the Committee was thus exclusively within the jurisdiction of this Committee a .d it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the Committee lacked jurisdiction in the matter.
11. The extension allowed to the petitioner for one semester under section 1 (m) of the Regulations relating to Admissions, Registrations and Examinations in M. Phil by the Advanced Studies and Research Board is only for the completion of M. Phil. Programme and in spite C of this extension he has ceased to be a student under regulation 1 (L) ibid and for the purposes of Students' Union Statutes. He cannot, therefore, press into service this extension for the purposes of Students' Union election and ex officio membership of various authorities of the University.
12. As already observed, the petitioner was allowed to continue as Presi lent of the Union till he completed his 4th Semester. Till that time, he continued to be student for the purposes of Students'
Union Statutes and, therefore, the failure on the part of the respondents not to question the validity of his office as President of the Union before the completion of 4th Semester by him does not amount to an act or conduct on the part of the respondents to an express or implied consent operating as estoppel against them from questioning the status of the petitioner as President of the Students Union even after he completed his 4th Semester and ceased to remain a regular student of the University.
13. The upshot of what has been said above is that there is no l legal infirmity in the impugned action of the Vice-Chancellor and the decision, dated 16th/18th July, 1983 of the Committee constituted under' section 39 of the Act. This Constitutional Petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. PLD 1982 Lah. 4111