Judgment N.N. Mathur, J.-The instant petition under the label of "Public Interest Litigation" has been preferred by the petitioner Arvind Singh Rathore, elected Vice President of the Commerce Faculty, JNV University, Jodhpur in the year 2001-02. He also contested the election on the post of President of the Students Union in 2004-05. Thus, he claims to be the Students leader working for the welfare of the students in the JNV University, Jodhpur. Petitioner has approached this Court having come to know about a decision of this Court at Jaipur Bench in Suo Moto vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2005 (5) RDD 1280 decided on 05.05.2005. The say of the petitioner is that there is an impression as per the Newspaper report that by the said Judgment , the Court has put a complete prohibition on election of the Students Union in any of the Universities in the State of Rajasthan. The said Judgment contains aspersions against students and teachers community without opportunity of hearing being given. It is averred that a Division Bench of this Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Sarita Choudhary, after hearing all the parties concerned while noticing the educational scenario in the State, particularly the indiscipline and violence in College and University Campus, instead of curbing the democratic right of the students to constitute a Students Union by process of election, preferred to regulate the functioning of the institutions by a continuous mandamus having held that the Students Union of a College or University is a laboratory of the democratic governance of the Country. 2. In this factual backdrop, petitioner seeks the following directions:- i. It may be declared that the order passed by the Jaipur Bench isper incuriam and as such the Judgment reported in 2004 (1) WLC p. 106 and the orders passed in the said Special Appeal before that hold the field in the matter of Election of Students Union; ii. Alternatively, it may be declared that the Judgment passed referred to in para No. 3 of this writ petition is not applicable to Universities of MLS University, MDS University, JNV University and all affiliated Colleges in the 17 Districts of Jodhpur Seat of Honble High Court; iii. Alternatively, it may be declared that the Judgment passed referred to in para No. 3 of this writ petition is not applicable to Universities of MLS University, MDS University, JNV University and all affiliated Colleges in the 17 Districts of Jodhpur Seat of Honble High Court; iii. That it may be declared that even if the Judgment referred to in para No. 3 of this writ petition is for whole of Rajasthan then too, it is void being violative of principles of natural justice as no institution of this area was heard and it is against the provision of the High Court of Rajasthan (Establishment of a Permanent Bench at Jaipur) Order, 1976; iv. That the Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court, be directed to issue a notification that whenever a case is filed at Jaipur Bench, a note should be appended that it does not pertain to the 17 Districts of Main Seat Jurisdiction; v. Anyother relief which this Honble Court considers proper in favour of the petitioner may kindly be granted." 3. Mr. S.D. Vyas, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised various contentions. To avoid any sort of embarrassment, we consider it appropriate to extract the contentions from the memo of petition as follows:- i.That the confusion has been created by the newspapers reporting since the Dainik Bhaskar (Jodhpur Edition) dated 06.05.2005 gives the impression as if all the Acts of various Universities are directed to be amended and it is applicable to all over the State whereas it is factually confined to Rajasthan University only. The news paper cutting of Dainik Bhaskar dated 06.05.2005 is annexed herewith and marked as Exhibit-1. This confusion and also the copy of the Judgment has been sent to all the Universities and as such this may lead to flouting of Judgment in WLC 2004 (1) p. 106 and other orders and Judgment passed on various dates mentioned herein. Hence, this Public Interest Litigation is being filed on behalf of all the students and also to maintain law and order; ii. Hence, this Public Interest Litigation is being filed on behalf of all the students and also to maintain law and order; ii. That it was within the domain of the main seat to deal with complete Rajasthan but the Division Bench of this Court dealt with only the Universities within the jurisdiction of the Main Seat and the Colleges affiliated to MDS University, Ajmer but Rajasthan University was not dealt with because that was beyond the jurisdiction of Main Seat and the above directions were crystallized after great deliberations as back as from 23rd July, 2002; iii. That it was the duty of the State Government to bring the Judgment of this Court to the notice of the Honble Division Bench of High Court at Jaipur Bench since State Government is one unit and the officers who are responsible for not bringing the facts of this Judgment should be dealt with strictly; iv. That the Honble High Court in the case of Sarita Choudhary passed more than three Judgment s dealing with all facets and it was the grace of the Honble High Court Division Bench headed by Honble Mr. N.N. Mathur J. that it confined its order to three Universities and 17 Districts though the State Government has followed those directions to in other areas also since these Judgment s are exhaustive and takes care of each and every minute details from eligibility of candidate to expenditure of the fund and the Division Bench has held at various places that Students Union is laboratory of democracy and it has recognized their right flowing from Article 19 and also regulated the same as per the Constitution and the right to election has been recognized in detail though the Students Union did not represent yet the Court itself came to their rescue. Hence, the Judgment of Honble Court are three in number and no co-ordinate Bench can overrule the co-ordinate Bench and Jaipur Bench cannot decide about the area in the jurisdiction of Jodhpur Main Seat. It seems that confusion has arisen because of news papers and the general loose words in the Judgment but in fact these directions pertaining to only Rajasthan University only. It seems that confusion has arisen because of news papers and the general loose words in the Judgment but in fact these directions pertaining to only Rajasthan University only. Hence, declaration is necessary to save the State from chaos; v. That the reasons which moved the Jaipur Bench to pass the Judgment have been redressed by our High Court like disturb out of peace, Law and Order, advertisement and posters in the elections, financial exploitation, Educational deterioration and it goes to the credit of Honble High Court that it has regulated all these facets in various orders which are within the knowledge of all concerned. Another reason which troubled the Jaipur Bench was that professionals are creating problems whereas this problem has been settled and now no professional can fight the Elections and the photocopy of the instruction issued by the Joint Director of College Education, Jaipur with the consultation of all the Vice-Chancellors is annexed herewith and marked as Exhibit-2. Hence, all the doubts raised but not redressed have already been redressed by Honble High Court at Jodhpur. Hence, the Judgment of Jaipur Bench is per incuriam; vi. That the Judgment shows that it is confined to Rajasthan University only and it is the news papers which have created confusion and the para No. 7 of the Judgment says singular chancellor of singular university and as such it is not effective in the three Universities and Colleges or Institutions in 17 Districts of Jodhpur Seat of Rajasthan High Court." 4. Before we proceed to deal with the contentions, we may read the Judgment delivered by this Court at Jaipur Bench in Suo Moto vs. State of Rajasthan, hereinafter referred to as "Students Suo Moto Case", as follows:- Þ[k.MihB flfoy fjV ;kfpdk la[;k & 5746@2003 05-05-2005 ekuuh; U;k;kf /kifr Jh f ko dqekj kekZ ekuuh; U;k;kf /kifr Jh ds- ,l- jkBkSM+ Jh vkj-Mh- xqtjZ] vkosnd Lo;a mifLFkrA Jh eksgEen jQhd] vfr- egkf /koDrk okLrs jkT;A Jh euh"k Hk.Mkjh] vf /koDrk okLrs izfri{khx.kA Jh euq HkkxZo] vf /koDrkA U;k;ky; }kjk ¼U;k- fko dqekj kekZ½ u rks vktdy ,lss xq: jgs gSa ftudh iwtk dh tkrh Fkh vkSj u ,lss Nk= tks xq: dks bZoj ls vf/kd lEeku nsrs Fks] iwT;uh; ekurs FksA izk;% ,lss lekpkj i<+us dks feyrs jgs gSa fd Nk= viuh usrkfxjh dh /kkd tekus ds fy, xq:vksa dks viekfur djrs gSa vkSj dbZ ckj rks xq:vksa dh fiVkbZ rd dj nrss gaSaA fk{k.k laa esa Nk= la?kksa ds pquko ds le; lEiw.kZ iznsk esj fk{kk dk LFkkvksa@foofo|ky;ksa kkafr Hkax gks tkrh gSA /ku vkSnq:i;ksx gksrk gSA pquko dh vof /k esa fk{k.k dk;Z yxHkx cUn jgrk gS] fk{k.k laLFkkvksa dh nhokjs pqukoh iksLVjksa ls jax nh tkrh gaSA f k{k.k laLFkk, sa gh ugha cfYd iwjk kgj pqukoe; gks tkrk gSA fuf pr djsxh fd jktLFkku dh f k{k.k laLFkkvksa@foofo|ky;ksa esa Nk= la1- jkT; ljdkj ;g lq?kksa ds pquko ugha gksxas ,oa ftu Nk=kas us fiNyh ijh{kk esa viuh d{kk esa lokfZ/kd vad izkIr fd, gS mUgsa gh Nk= la?k dk xk rFkk mu Nk=kas eslnL; cuk;k tk ldsa ls gh v/;{k] mik/;{k] lfpo vkfn inkf /kdkfj;kas dk euksu;u fd;k tkosxkA fuf pr djsxh fd fk{k.k laLFkkvksa@foofo|ky;kasesa dspq 2- jkT; ljdkj ;g lqa fk{kd la?kksuko ugha gksxsaA tks uko dk izjktLFkku foofo|ky; vf /kfu;e] 1949 dh /kkjk&21 dh mi /kkjk&1 dk Dykt 11¼,½ easpqko/kku fn;k x;k gS mDr izko/kku ds lakks/ku ds fy, jkT; ljdkj vxszf "kr gksxh rFkk pquko ds mDr izko/kku dks euksu;u esa ifjofrZr fd;k tk ldsxkA 3- egkefge jkT;iky dqyifr] foofo|ky;kssa ds ,lss fk{kdksa ds lEcU/k esa ftUgksaus fiNys o"kksZa esa d{kk,a ugha yh gaS] jktLFkku foofo|ky; vf /kfu;e] 1946 dh /kkjk&10-3 ds vUrxZqr tk¡p vf /kdkjh dh fu; fDr djsxsa] tks bl lEcU/k esa tk¡p djsxsa fd fiNys o"kksZa esa fdu&fdu fk{kdksa }kjk d{kk,a sugha yh xbZ vkSj ;fn dksbZ sbl lEcU/k esa nks"kh ik;k tkrk gS rks ml vof /k] ftl vof /k esa mlus d{kk,a ugha yh gaS] osru okfil fy;k tk ldsxkA tk¡p vf /kdkjh viuh fjiksVZ lh/ks gh foofo|ky;ksf "kr a ds dqyifr egkefge jkT;iky dks isz djsxk] ftl ij dqyifr egkefge jkT;iky dk; Zokgh dj ldsxsaA mDr fjiksVZ dks flafMdsV ds le{k izLrqr djus dh vko;drk ugha gksxhA 4- foofo|ky; ,oa vU; fk{k.k lasLFkkvksa dh ijh{kk,a fu/kkZfjr frfFk dks lEiUu gksaxh vkSj muds ifj.kke Hkh fu/kkZfjr frfFk dks ?kksf "kr dj fn, tkosxsaA 5- fk{k.k dyS.Mj dh ikyuk iw.kZ:i ls dh tkosxhAkjEHk gks 6-fk{k.k dk;Z izus ls iwoZ gh fk{kdksa dks muds }kjk tks d{kk,a syh tkuh gaS] dk vkoaVu dj fn;k tkosxk vkSj blesa fdlh izdkj dh dksbZ dkSrkgh ugha cjrh tkosxhA 7- nkxh f k{kdksa dks fdlh izdkj ds egRoiw.kZ inksa ij fu;qfDr ugha nh tkosxhA 8- fk{k.k laLFkkvksa@foofo|ky;ksa esa dk;Zjr deZpkfj;ksa ds la/kksa ds pqukoksa ij Hkh ikcUnh yxkbZ tkosxhA jkT; ljdkj mDr funsZkksa ds lEcU/k esa kh? kz gh vko;d foKfIr tkjh djsxhA mDr funsZk ds lkFk ;g fjV ;kfpdk fuLrkfjr dh tkrh gSA bl vknsk dh ,d&,d izfrfyfi dqyifr] foofo|ky; egkefge jkT;iky] jktLFkku ds futh lfpo ,oa eq[; lfpo] jktLFkku ljdkj] t;iqf "kr dh j dks isz tkosA ,l-Mh-,l-Mh-¼U;k- ds- ,l- jkBkSM+½ ¼U;k- fko dqekj kekZ½Þ .5. At this stage, it will be relevant to state that in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 188/2002 "State of Rajasthan vs. Sarita Choudhary”, two applications have also been filed; one by Jainarayan Pooniya, Presdient, Students Union, JNV University, Jodhpur and other by Ashok Singhvi, Sah Pramukh, Akhi Bhartiya Vidhyarthi Parishad, Udaipur; Bhawana Paliwal, President, Student Union, Meera Girls College, Udaipur and Monu Gupta, Member of Cultural Committee, Students Union 2004-05, Faculty of Law, Udaipur. In the application filed by Jainarayan Pooniya, President, Students Union, JNV University, Jodhpur. It is averred that he was elected as a President of the Students Union by a democratic process on 21st August, 2004 for the Academic Sessions 2004-05. It is further averred that the elections were conducted as per the directions given by this Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Sarita Choudhary. The elections were monitored by this Court with the State authorities viz; Secretary, Higher Education, Vice Chancellors and other District Officers. He has also referred to a model Code of Conduct for the students prepared by the State Government under the directions of this Court. It is further averred that the compliance reports were submitted before the Court by all the three Universities and the Collectors and District Magistrates of all the 17 districts. This Court has also recorded its satisfaction as to free, fair and impartial elections as well as discipline among the Students. The applicant has quoted the observations of this Court, particularly the decision of the Kerala High Court which completely banned the elections of the Students Union. The applicant has extracted the observations of this Court as follows: ."The majority of the students in the college campus are above 18 years of age and they cannot be denied organisational freedom. The colleges are training campus for the future politicians." .6. This Court has dis-approved the Campus violence. The Students Union Election and its activities are considered to be an essential part of the education to ensure growth to the responsible citizenry for development of the Country. The colleges are training campus for the future politicians." .6. This Court has dis-approved the Campus violence. The Students Union Election and its activities are considered to be an essential part of the education to ensure growth to the responsible citizenry for development of the Country. It is submitted that the election of the President of the Students Union on merit as per the performance in the examination, will substitute a bureaucratic culture in place of democratic set up. It destroys the very basic structure of the Constitution. It is argued that if there is an evil in the system leading to indiscipline among the students and teachers, it can be cured by taking regulatory measures and if the State is not able to check the same, this Court has ample power to issue appropriate directions and regulate the process by way of continuous mandamus. It is further .submitted that in fact, this Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Sarita Choudhary, has issued wide ranging directions and has been regulating the same for last three years. The elections have been held peacefully without violence. It has also introduced discipline and there is a good atmosphere. There has been no complaint as has been projected in the recently delivered Judgment in Suo Moto vs. State at Jaipur Bench. With utmost respect, the Honble Judges without notice, by brief order, have issued directions of wide ramification on notion taking the cause "suo moto". It is further submitted that the issue involved is of high public importance and, as such, be referred to the larger Bench for adjudication. 7. In another application filed by the Student leaders of the Mohanlal Sukhadia University, Udaipur, it is averred that as a result of intervention of this Court in State of Rajathan vs. Sarita Choudhary, the University has become violence free. Various themes like clean campus and regulated elections have gained popularity amongst the Students. It is further averred that this Court in Sarita Choudharys case (Supra), after obtaining the reports from all the three universities and the State Government and also further deliberations in depth and detail, have been issuing directions from time to time. The directions issued by this Court at Jaipur Bench in Suo Moto vs. State have come to them as a surprise, as they were never heard on the issue. It is further submitted that the said decision is per incurlam. The directions issued by this Court at Jaipur Bench in Suo Moto vs. State have come to them as a surprise, as they were never heard on the issue. It is further submitted that the said decision is per incurlam. However, the contention raised in para 5 of the application is extracted as follows: "That this Honble Court has clearly deliberated upon the issue of the election in a very systematic and long drawn process thereby dealing with each and every minor aspects of the election and since the orders pertain to Division Bench of this Honble Court, therefore, per incuriam they are binding upon all the authorities as per the Constitutional mandate and, therefore, it may be clarified that unless this order which is prior to the latter order it may be ordered that the same may remain applicable until and unless a larger bench or a higher Court changes the status." 8. The applicant has sought direction as follows: "It is, therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed that this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India of the applicants may kindly be allowed and the all the parties in the above mentioned matter may kindly be directed to abide by the terms and conditions of the Judgment passed in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 188/2002, State of Rajasthan vs. Sarita Choudhary." 9. Before dealing with the grievance voiced, it would be convenient to briefly state the record of proceedings in State of Rajasthan vs. Sarita Choudhary. 10. A group of writ petitions were filed before this Court challenging a provision introduced on the recommendation of the Coordination Committee in the Constitution of the Students Union of the Government and Private Colleges prohibiting a student from contesting election who failed to qualify himself or herself for promotion to the next higher class. The said provision was struck down. The learned Single Judge held that the provision altering eligibility criteria for contesting the election constituted the infringement of fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1) (a) and (c) of the Constitution. It was further held that right to form an association or Union being a fundamental right of every citizen including the students of the college, that right can only be curtailed or put under cloud by legislative action. Accordingly, the amended provision was set aside by the learned Single Judge. It was further held that right to form an association or Union being a fundamental right of every citizen including the students of the college, that right can only be curtailed or put under cloud by legislative action. Accordingly, the amended provision was set aside by the learned Single Judge. The State preferred an Special Appeal against the said Judgment dated 20.12.2000 rendered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3124/2000 and other group of writ petitions. The Special Appeal came to be admitted on 01.04.2002. The matter was taken up for hearing. It was argued that the State Government with a view to bring reforms in the election process and to make functioning of the Students Union more rational issued directions dated 17.08.2000 to all the Government and private Colleges whether affiliated or non-affiliated with the universities or whether receiving grant-in-aid or not, to provide the eligibility criteria for contesting the elections and other matters connected therewith in the constitution of the institution governing the election and functions of the Students Union. It was further submitted that in Clauses 2 to 6 of Article 19 of the Constitution of India, the right guaranteed under Article 19(1) is subject to reasonable restrictions which can be imposed by the State Government. It was further submitted that the restrictions which have been put by the State Government are in the best interest of the students, as such, the restrictions are just, fair and reasonable. The object of the restrictions is to discourage the students to continue in the institutions only for the sake of contesting the elections. Such candidates are found to pollute the atmosphere of the colleges or the universities. It was further submitted that the institutions can frame appropriate rules to control, regulate and run the colleges in a disciplined manner. It was brought to our notice that the decision was taken from time to time for proper functioning of the universities by a committee constituted by the Chancellor known as "Vice Chancellor Coordination Committee". Thus, during the course of hearing; it was felt expedient to obtain the relevant informations from the JNV University, Jodhpur; MLS University, Udaipur and MDS University, Ajmer. Thus, the notices were given to all the three universities. 11. The detailed reply was filed on behalf of the State Government. It furnished all the requisite informations including the reports of the various Committees. Thus, the notices were given to all the three universities. 11. The detailed reply was filed on behalf of the State Government. It furnished all the requisite informations including the reports of the various Committees. In one of the meetings, a serious deliberation took place to improve the existing method of election in the educational institutions by providing leadership to the meritorious students. However, the said suggestion was not accepted. Another committee was appointed under the Chairmanship of Dr. L.S. Rathore, the then Vice Chancellor, JNV University, Jodhpur. A decision of the Apex Court dated 4th May, 2001 in Vishwa Jagriti Mission vs. Central Government (Civil Writ Petition No. 656/98) which pertains to curbing of ragging in the university campus, was also placed on record. The Apex Court noticed some of the incidents, which crossed the limits of decency, morality and humanity among students. 12. Another decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court was also placed on record wherein the learned Single Judge disapproved the unlawful activities of the students of coercive collection of funds from the traders, businessmen and even from the persons passing through the city roads in the name of contesting elections. The learned Judge came heavily on the institutions in failure to check the spoiling of walls by the students in the city during elections. The Court gave wide ranging directions and disposed of the writ petition. This Court considering all the material on record and after hearing the learned Counsel for the different Universities and the State Government, directed the State Government to prepare a common Code of Conduct for the Students Unions of the subject Universities and their constituent colleges for free, fair and impartial elections to enforce discipline and to ensure the growth of responsible citizenry for development of the Country. However, untill such statutory rules were framed, this Court gave wide ranging directions as follows: "7. It is well established that the Courts can issue the authorities appropriate directions in a case where Executive failed to perform their obligatory duties or whenever there is a failure on their part to discharge them. However, untill such statutory rules were framed, this Court gave wide ranging directions as follows: "7. It is well established that the Courts can issue the authorities appropriate directions in a case where Executive failed to perform their obligatory duties or whenever there is a failure on their part to discharge them. In these peculiar facts and circumstances of the case we direct the State of Rajasthan to prepare a common code of conduct for the Students Unions of subject universities and their constituent colleges for free, fair and impartial elections, to enforce discipline and to ensure growth of the responsible citizenry for development of the country. However, till such statutory rules are framed, we direct as follows:- .(i) The universities or the State or the constituent colleges shall constitute an Editorial Board of independent teachers and students and publish quarterly News Letter or Bulletin with the minimum cost. .(ii) The campaign for contesting the elections shall be restricted to the campus of the university alone and in case of college students union it will be restricted to the campus of the college alone. (iii) No students or his supporter or any student organisation shall collect money from public, shop keepers, businessmen, traders and other professionals by coercive means. .(iv) The election expenses by the individual candidate or his/her supporter shall not exceed, in case of President Rs. 25,000/-and other office bearers Rs. 15,000/-. .(v) The contesting candidates should submit account of election expenditure within seven days from the date of elections. .(vi) There shall be complete ban on pasting of any sort of poster or slip or writing of slogans, advertisement on public hoardings, traffic signals, mile stones, boards (indicating the name of the institution, office, locality etc.), public walls. (vii) Thereshall be restriction on possession of any weapon, fire-arm, stick, hockey stick, knife, sword, iron rod, chain or stone etc. in any part of the University Campus or college premises or the hostel. In case of hockey stick used for playing Hockey, it shall be permitted for limited hour by Vice Chancellor/Principal/Director/Dean on the recommendation of the authority incharge of discipline and sports. (viii) There shall be no procession out of the University Campus or the college premises after the election in the name of victory procession. In case of hockey stick used for playing Hockey, it shall be permitted for limited hour by Vice Chancellor/Principal/Director/Dean on the recommendation of the authority incharge of discipline and sports. (viii) There shall be no procession out of the University Campus or the college premises after the election in the name of victory procession. In case it becomes necessary to pass through a part of the area outside the campus it shall be with the permission of the concern Superintendent Police on furnishing the undertaking that they shall not disturb the peace and tranquility. .(ix) During the elections the University shall provide a limited space for the posters for the pasting of poster or writing by the candidates during the elections. .(x) The University shall provide joint platform to the candidates contesting for each post to deliver speech and also to reply the queries made by the students. Such speeches shall be in presence of the teaching staff nominated by the concerned authorities in the universities or the colleges. .(xi) The oath or affirmation shall be made by the office bearers of the union within 3 days from the date of declaration of the result on the date and time fixed by Vice Chancellor or any person authorised by him in case of university or in case of the college by the Principal or person authorised by him. (xii) Theoath or affirmation shall be administered to the President and other office bearers by the Vice Chancellor or the Principal as the case may be; or the person nominated by them, who has been a university or college teacher for no less than 25 years. Explanation:- It will be open for the elected candidate to invite the guest of his or her choice on the said occasion as a Chief Guest including a political leader subject to the approval of the Vice Chancellor/Principal/Director/Dean as the case may be. No programme of the students union shall be carried including extending invitation to a guest without the prior approval of said authorities. (xiii) A candidate who fails to take oath within period of 3 days from the date of declaration of the result of elections, he/she shall deem to have vacated the office. No programme of the students union shall be carried including extending invitation to a guest without the prior approval of said authorities. (xiii) A candidate who fails to take oath within period of 3 days from the date of declaration of the result of elections, he/she shall deem to have vacated the office. In rare case for the sufficient reasons on an application by the of elected candidate or a person authorised by him or her the Vice Chancellor/Principal may extend the period not exceeding three days. Explanation:- The non-availability of the Chief Guest on the date fixed will not be considered sufficient ground for extending the time; (xiv) Within three weeks from the date of assuming the office the President of the Union or the Vice President in case of Faculty or College shall submit. Charter of activities which he/she proposed to undertake during the tenure to the Vice Chancellor/Director/Dean/Principal as the case may be. Following shall be obligatory activities on the part of the Students Union:- .(A) Inter Faculty or Intra Faculty sports competition; .(B) Lecture or essay competition of a debate or any other similar activities; .(C) Organising the Seminar, conference, workshop; .(D) Social Service; .(E) Shram Dan within the University Campus; .(F) Programme showing sensitiveness towards the protection of environment or human rights; .(G) Cultural performance; (xv) The Students Union will prepare and present the budget to the Vice Chancellor or the Principal. There shall be deliberation on budget as per the existing rules. The authorities shall ensure that appropriate provision is made for each obligatory activities. There shall be ceiling on the expenditure on refreshment, telephone bill, maintenance of office etc. which in no case shall exceed 10% of the students fund collected in the current session. (xvi) The disbursement of fund shall be made strictly as per the approved budgetary provisions. As far as possible no money shall be paid in hand to any of the office bearers, or student. On submitting the bill the payment shall be made by the office on recommendation of the Advisory Board and approved by the Vice Chancellor/Principal/Director/Dean as the case may be. In a given case where certain amount is advanced to any office bearer, it will be his or her obligation to submit the account within the period specified, in no case later than three weeks. In a given case where certain amount is advanced to any office bearer, it will be his or her obligation to submit the account within the period specified, in no case later than three weeks. (xvii) In case the an office bearer fails to submit the account:- .(a) his/her name shall be shown in the quarterly magazine as a defaulter.