( 1 ) IN this writ petition, petitioners have prayed for the relief to declare that term of petitioners as Member of Court and executive Council is valid till 9-1-2005. Petitioners are entitled to function as such, respondents be commanded to allow the petitioners to function without any obstruction or fetter. ( 2 ) THE petitioners were elected as representative of registered graduates on 24-11-2000, on being registered graduates they became entitled to be members of the Court as specified in the category (xix) mentioned in Group C of Section 20 (1) of the M. P. Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Adhiniyam" ). The court as per S. 20 (1) of Adhiniyam was constituted on 10-1-2002, notification (P/1)was published on the same very day. As per section 20 (3) of Adhiniyam term of Court is three years, that is, up to 9-1-2005. Petitioners term is co-extensive and coterminous with the term of the Court. Thereafter petitioners were elected as members of the Executive Council as per Section 23 (iii) of the adhiniyam. Notification (P/2) was published on 27-3-2003. Thus, petitioners are eligible and entitled to work and function as members of the Court and Executive Council till 9-1-2005. ( 3 ) IT is averred in the writ petition that respondents acting illegally and arbitrary have prematurely determined the term of the members of the Court and Executive Council with effect from 24-11-2003 treating the date of election, that is 24-11-2000 as the date of the commencement of the term and have prevented the petitioners from participating in the meetings of the Court and Executive Council, press release has been issued on 20-1-2004, the action is illegal, contrary to law laid down by this Court in surendra Sohane v. Dr. Hari Singh Gour Vishwavidyalaya 1991 MPLJ 489 : ( AIR 1991 MP 312 ). Notice (P/4) dated 8-12-2003 was issued for meeting of the Executive Council to be held on 24-12-2003, petitioners were not noticed. Petitioners have submitted that action is contrary to provision of Section 20 (3) of Adhiniyam. Term of the petitioner will expire on 10-1-2005. ( 4 ) A return has been filed by respondents contending that decision rendered in surendra Sohane ( AIR 1991 MP 312 ) (supra) is distinguishable. The Court has dealt with the members who were life members as registered graduates. Term of the petitioner will expire on 10-1-2005. ( 4 ) A return has been filed by respondents contending that decision rendered in surendra Sohane ( AIR 1991 MP 312 ) (supra) is distinguishable. The Court has dealt with the members who were life members as registered graduates. Statute 15 has been amended thereafter in the year 1995, there is no provision for life membership, now registration of registered graduates is only for a period of three years, thereafter there has to be renewal of the same and in case renewal is not sought, membership stands terminated and a person can be inducted only after he files fresh application. ( 5 ) IT is further contended in the return that petitioner No. 1 Mr. Akhilesh Kesarwani and petitioner No. 2 Mr. Ankleshwar Dubey have submitted their application for registration as registered graduates on 24-8-2000 and 18-8-2000 respectively. On account of their registration as registered graduates, they were eligible to stand as candidates and vote in the election of Court members. Election programme (R/1) Was notified on 29-7-2000, period of three years of membership of Mr. Akhilesh Kesarwani came to an end on 24-8-2003 renewal application was received on 22-9-2003 after 29 days whereas in the case of Mr. Ankleshwar Dubey period of three years of membership was completed on 18-8-2003, application for renewal was filed oh 23-9-2003 after one months five days, grace period is allowed of 30 days only, thereafter renewal cannot be made, thus, petitioners ceases to be the members of the body of registered graduate, no person can become the member of the Court unless he is registered graduate, consequently cannot represent in Executive Council, hence, petitioners have ceased to be the members of executive Council and the Court. ( 6 ) IT is further contended in the return that members nominated or elected cannot be treated, as coterminous or co-extensive with the term of the Court under Section 20 (3) of Adhiniyam. As in the case of members of Vidhan Sabha, they are nominated under Group-C, which is similar group, if vidhan Sabha is dissolved then these members cannot continue as member of the court as they are members of the State legislature. As in the case of members of Vidhan Sabha, they are nominated under Group-C, which is similar group, if vidhan Sabha is dissolved then these members cannot continue as member of the court as they are members of the State legislature. Notification (R/4), in this regard, has been issued on 7-1-1993, they cannot continue as members of Court on account of their nomination for three years since they cease to be members of State legislature. In section 20 (1) Group-C (xx-a) if a salaried employee is elected but he retires before completion of three years, he cannot continue to be the member of the Court for three years. Similarly in Group-B 5 (x), four Principals of affiliated colleges have to be the members, if some Principal retires or transferred to another colleges affiliated to another University, he ceases to be the member of the Court. It is further submitted that in Group-B 7 (xii) two Professors from the affiliated Colleges are to be elected amongst themselves, in case of transfer to other University, they ceases to be the members of the Court. They cannot hold the office by virtue of their election for three years. Similarly in Group-B (xii) and (xiii) if a person is transferred, he ceases to be a member. Reliance has also been placed on Section 64 (2)as Shri Akhilesh Kesarwani and Shri ankleshwar Dubey have not applied within time, they ceases to be thq member as registered graduate, hence, they cannot consequently act in the Court /executive Council. ( 7 ) A rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner. It is submitted that amendment in statute 15 is not made by following the process of law, same cannot be given effect to. Opinion from Court was not sought, University has travelled beyond Section 46 while framing the statute. Shri Ankleshwar Dubey has submitted the renewal application on 19-9-2003, fresh application (P/10) for registration with enhanced fees Of Rs. 100/- has been filed on 16-3-2004. There is no automatic cancellation of the membership as registered graduate, name has not been deleted from the register, hence, petitioner are legally and validly continuing as registered graduate and consequently the members of the Court and Executive Council. Other allegations of mala fide and mal-administration have been levelled. 100/- has been filed on 16-3-2004. There is no automatic cancellation of the membership as registered graduate, name has not been deleted from the register, hence, petitioner are legally and validly continuing as registered graduate and consequently the members of the Court and Executive Council. Other allegations of mala fide and mal-administration have been levelled. ( 8 ) IN additional return filed by respondent No. 1, it is contended that once the membership as registered graduate ceases, petitioners cannot hold the office, registered graduate cannot enlarge the term to 5 years without seeking renewal within three years or within grace period. While framing statute 15 procedure has been followed. It has been framed for all the Universities of M. P. Petitioners have suppressed the above material fact. Section 35 (p) provides for maintenance of register of registered graduates, amendment made is in tune with the provision of Section 36 and Section 46 of the adhiniyam. No interference is called for in this writ petition. ( 9 ) SHRI Ajay Mishra, learned senior counsel appearing for petitioners has submitted that petitioners have the right to continue as member of the Court for a period of three years from the date it was constituted, term is up to 10-1-2005, they have the'right to continue as member of executive council till 10-1-2005. Shri Akhilesh Kesarwani /petitioner No. 1 has submitted the application for renewal within the grace period of 30 days. Application which was filed by Shri ankleshwar Dubey/ petitioner No. 2 was beyond 30 days but the name from the register of graduates Was not deleted by the Registrar as such petitioner No. 2/ Shri ankleshwar Dubey has the right to continue as a registered graduate. He has filed fresh application with enhanced fees later on. In case renewal was not permissible, fresh application was filed, thus, petitioner No. 2 has also not incurred any disqualification, thus, the action of respondent /university of treating the petitioners having ceased to be the registered graduates and consequently member of the Court and executive council is bad in law. Learned counsel has placed reliance on Section 19 (iii) and Section 23 (ii)of Adhiniyam. He has further submitted that term of Court is three years which cannot be curtailed. He has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Surendra Sohane v. Dr. Learned counsel has placed reliance on Section 19 (iii) and Section 23 (ii)of Adhiniyam. He has further submitted that term of Court is three years which cannot be curtailed. He has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Surendra Sohane v. Dr. Hari Singh Gour Vishwavidyalaya ( AIR 1991 MP 312 ) (supra), thus, the action of the respondents is bad in law. ( 10 ) SHRI Mrigendra Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondents has submitted that petitioners did not apply for renewal within the prescribed period as such they cease to be registered graduate, consequently cannot represent in the Court and executive council. He has relied upon statute 15 to submit that various other members of the Court have to cease to be the members in case they lose the basic qualification prescribed for being member of the court. As petitioners cease to be the registered graduate, they cannot continue as member of the Court or executive council. Decision of Surendra Sohane ( AIR 1991 MP 312 ) (supra) is distinguishable as there used to be life membership for registered graduates when the decision was taken. Thereafter Statute 15 was framed by the Coordination Committee which is applicable for all the Universities in Madhya Pradesh. Hence, there is no illegality in the action of University. ( 11 ) FIRSTLY facts which are necessary which are admitted also be noted. It is not in dispute that petitioner No. 1 /mr. Akhilesh kesarwani had applied for renewal within 30 days of the cessation of his membership as a registered graduate. It has also not been disputed that petitioner No. 2/ Mr. Ankleshwar Dubey had applied beyond the period of 30 days of the cessation of his membership as registered graduate. Petitioner No. 1 /shri Akhilesh Kesarwani's membership was for a period of three years which came to an end on 24-8-2003. Application for renewal was filed on 22-9-2003. In case of Shri Ankleshwar Dubey/ petitioner No. 2 three years membership came to an end on 18-8-2003, application was filed beyond 30 days, as per the University it was filed on 23-9-2003, as per petitioner No. 2 it was filed on 19-9-2003. Even if any date is taken same was filed beyond 30 days of the grace period which is allowed under Statute 15. Even if any date is taken same was filed beyond 30 days of the grace period which is allowed under Statute 15. ( 12 ) STATUTE 15 which has been framed under M. P. Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 provides for registration of graduates. Registration is provided in para 2 (i); an application has to be made with prescribed fees of Rs. 100/-, registration of registered graduates shall be for a period of three years. This registration shall be renewable for a further period of three years. ( 13 ) PARA 2 (ii) provides that application for renewal shall be made "not later than 30 days after expiry of the registration of the graduate" and in case renewal application is made within the prescribed time, the registration of graduates shall be renewable for three years. It is further provided that in case application for renewal is npt received within the prescribed period, name of the graduate shall be deleted from the register of registered graduate and thereafter the concerned graduate will be required to register himself afresh on payment of a full fee of Rs. 100/-Relevant provision 2 (i) and 2 (ii) of Statute no. 15 are quoted below :-"2 (i) Registration of registered graduates shall be for a period of three years on payment of a fee of rs. 100/- along with an application in the prescribed form. This registration shall be renewable for a further period of 3 years and such renewal shall be done on payment of a fee of Rs. 40/- for every renewal in the prescribed form given in appendix B. 2 (ii) Application for renewal shall be made not later than 30 days after the expiry of the registration of the Graduate and in case renewal application is made within the prescribed time the registration of the graduates shall be renewed for three years. In case the application for renewal is not received within the prescribed period the name of the graduate shall be deleted from the register of registered graduate and the Registrar shall authenticate the deletion. After the name is deleted the concerned graduate will be required to register himself afresh on payment of a full fee of Rs. 100/- and an application in the prescribed form given in Appendix "a". After the name is deleted the concerned graduate will be required to register himself afresh on payment of a full fee of Rs. 100/- and an application in the prescribed form given in Appendix "a". Provided that a registered graduate whose name stands in the register of registered graduates on the date on which this amendment is approved by the Coordination Committee, (hereinafter called the appointed date) shall continue to be a registered graduate up to one year after the appointed date or three years from the date pf his registration whichever is later, Such graduates will be required ,to submit an application for renewal in the prescribed form given in Appendix "b" with a renewal fees of Rs. 40/ -. " ( 14 ) IT is apparent from abovequoted provision that petitioner No. 1/mr. Akhilesh kesarwani has filed the application for renewal within time. Once an application for renewal is filed within the prescribed time limit as provided in para 2 (ii), person continues to be the member. However, in the case of petitioner No. 2/mr. Ankleshwar dubey, it is clear that he has not filed the application even within the grace period of 30 days, thus, the renewal of his initial registration of registered graduate is not permissible and he can only be inducted as a fresh member. Thus, it is clear that person who has not filed the renewal application within the prescribed time ceases to be a registered graduate, thus, in my opinion, petitioner No. 2/mr. Ankleshwar Dubey having failed to file application within 30 days after the expiry of registration of graduate ceases to be the registered graduate and deletion from the register of graduates is the consequence which follows. Fresh application was filed on 18th March, 2004, thus, it is clear that petitioner No. 2/ Mr. Ankleshwar dubey has ceased to be a registered graduate having failed to apply for renewal within the period which has been prescribed by statute 15. ( 15 ) NEXT question which arises for consideration is whether the petitioners can continue in the above circumstances as member of the Court and Executive Council. Answer with respect to Mr. Akhilesh kesarwani/ petitioner No. 1 is clear that he continues to be the member of the Court and Executive Council for the period he was elected the member of the Court i. e. till 10-1-2005. Answer with respect to Mr. Akhilesh kesarwani/ petitioner No. 1 is clear that he continues to be the member of the Court and Executive Council for the period he was elected the member of the Court i. e. till 10-1-2005. ( 16 ) COMING to the case of petitioner no. 2/ Mr. Ankleshwar Dubey, in my opinion, he cannot continue as member of the court or that of Executive Council as the basic qualification for member of the Court in Group-C as provided under Section 20 (xix) is of being registered graduate. In case any person cease to possess the basic membership as registered graduate, in my opinion, he cannot continue as the member of the Court on similar analogy an elected member of legislative assembly is also nominated as mentioned above cannot continue once legislative assembly is no more in existence, simply on the basis of term of three years of the Court. Similarly the Principals in Section 20 (1) Group-C in case of salaried employees and in case of principals in group-B 5 (x) and the case of professors in group-B 6 (xi) and in the case of professors in Group-B 7 (xii), they ceased to be the member of the Court in case of retirement, transfers, etc. The provision of section 20 (3) which has been relied upon by Shri Mishra, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners has to be read harmoniously with the provision of Statute 15. Section 20 (3) is quoted below :-"20 (3) The term of office of members nominated or elected, as the case may be, under Group-B and Group-C or included in group-E of sub-section (1) shall be coterminous with the term of the Court which shall be three years. " ( 17 ) THOUGH the term which has been fixed is three years, however, in case person ceases to be member of very body from which he has been nominated or elected to the court ceases to be a member of the Court. ( 18 ) SHRI Mishra, Sr. Counsel has further relied upon Section 23 (2) of Adhiniyam which provides that member of Executive council shall hold the office for three years. ( 18 ) SHRI Mishra, Sr. Counsel has further relied upon Section 23 (2) of Adhiniyam which provides that member of Executive council shall hold the office for three years. Section 23 (2) reads thus :-"members of the Executive Council other than ex-officio members shall hold office for a period of three years; provided that a member of the Executive council elected under item (iii) of sub-section (1) shall pease to hold office, as such member if he ceases to be a member of the court. " ( 19 ) IT is clear from above provision that if a member ceased to hold the office as member'of the Court, shall cease to hold the office of executive council. It is clear that cessation of the member of executive council is permitted in case a member ceases to be a member of the Court and in my opinion, if one ceases to be registered graduate, he ceases to be a member of the Court, consequently he cannot represent in the Court or in the Executive Council. ( 20 ) SHRI Mishra, learned Sr. Counsel has relied upon decision of Surendra Sohane ( AIR 1991 MP 312 ) (supra) wherein division Bench of this Court has laid down thus :-"18. There is thus no escape from the conclusion that no Court was constituted either on 14-4-1998 or any time thereafter. Therefore, the members elected within the categories mentioned in group C of section 20 (1) never entered office as members of the court at all and, therefore, their term cannot be said to have expired because it was to be coextensive with the life of the Court which was three years from the date that it was so constituted. The constitution of the court which was not complete under Section 20 (1) on 14-4-1988 or any time thereafter could not be held to become nugatory merely by the issuance of the impugned notification of the University as contained in Annexure P/7. We are, therefore, constrained to hold that Annexure P/7 is vitiated and is in clear contravention of the statutory provisions as engrafted in the Act. " ( 21 ) AT the relevant time when above decision was rendered there was life membership for registered graduates, this Court has not considered the question of cessation of membership of registered graduates as provided in Statute 15 which has been framed subsequently. " ( 21 ) AT the relevant time when above decision was rendered there was life membership for registered graduates, this Court has not considered the question of cessation of membership of registered graduates as provided in Statute 15 which has been framed subsequently. Thus, the decision cannot be said to be an authority on the point which was not posed for consideration as the provision itself has been enacted subsequently, however, I accept the submission that term of the Court has to commence when the court was constituted not before it, as held by Division Bench of this Court in Surendra sohane ( AIR 1991 MP 312 ) (supra ). ( 22 ) SHRI Mishra, Sr. Counsel has also submitted that procedure was not followed while framing the Statute 15. ( 23 ) MR. Mrigendra Singh, counsel for respondents has submitted that procedure has been duly followed as stated in the additional return and the petitioners have suppressed the material fact that Statute 15 has been framed for all the Universities. As the question of vires has not been raised in the prayer clause, submission cannot be raised. Only in the rejoinder plea has been taken which cannot be a substitute for a relief in the prayer clause. There is no whisper in the writ petition that provision is ultra vires, no such relief has been prayed. ( 24 ) RESULTANTLY, writ petition is allowed with respect to petitioner No. 1. / Mr. Akhilesh Kesarwani. With respect to petitioner no. 2/mr. Ankleshwar Dubey same is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs as incurred. Order accordingly. .