JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sunil Ambwani, J.—Heard Shri Shailendra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri P.S. Baghel for the University of Allahabad. The Addl. Solicitor General of India, High Court, Allahabad has accepted notice on behalf of Union of India, respondent No. 1. Shri Neeraj Tripathi appears for Chancellor, University of Allahabad, respondent No. 2, Shri Ram Gopal Tripathi has accepted notice on behalf of Vice Chancellor, University of Allahabad and the University, respondent Nos. 3 and 4. 2. By this writ petition the petitioner seeks direction of this Court to quash the order dated 6.12.2006 passed by the Vice-Chancellor, University of Allahabad, Allahabad (Annex. 15 to the writ petition) and to issue writ of mandamus directing the Vice-Chancellor as patron of the Students Union to decide the issue within 14.12.2006 in accordance with the direction issued by this Court in the judgment dated 30.11.2006 in review petition No. 250427 of 2006 and also on the basis of finding recorded in the judgment dated 22.11.2006 in writ petition No. 29077 of 2006, relying upon the authorities of different Universities/decision of the Vice-Chancellor on the similarly situate of Lucknow University, Kanpur University and Banaras Hindu University as mentioned by the Court in its earlier judgment. 3. This writ petition is sequel to the writ petition No. 29077 of 2006 filed by the petitioner challenging the decision of the Election Tribunal, which had dismissed the election petition filed by the petitioner challenging the election of Shri Ajit Kumar Yadav as President in the Students Union, of the academic year 2005-06 held on 24.11.2005. The result was declared on 9.12.2005. The office bearers took oath on office on 14.12.2005. 4. The petitioner challenged the election of Shri Ajit Kumar Yadav on the ground that he was disqualified to contest. This Court by its judgment dated 22.11.2006 found that election of Shri Ajit Kumar Yadav, opposite party No. 9 was wholly invalid, he was not competent to participate in the election and his election as President of the Allahabad University is unsustainable. The order of the Election Tribunal was quashed. The Court then considered the prayer of the petitioner, who has secured second highest votes in the elections to be declared as President of the Students Union. The argument was not accepted. The order of the Election Tribunal was quashed. The Court then considered the prayer of the petitioner, who has secured second highest votes in the elections to be declared as President of the Students Union. The argument was not accepted. The Court directed that fresh elections should take place and observed : “The learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon law laid down by the Apex Court in AIR 1969 SC 2101 argued that in case election of Opp. Party No. 9 is declared invalid, the petitioner may be declared as elected. I have examined the ratio flowing from the said decision. It has been held in the said decision that if there are only two contestants and election of one is declared invalid, the second one can be declared elected. The aforesaid case was considered by the Apex Court in a subsequent case reported in P.K. Khandre v. Dr. Vijay Kumar Khandre, (2000) 5 SCC 568 in which it was held by the Apex Court that in case of multi cornered contest, even if elected candidate is subsequently found to be disqualified, the candidate who secured more votes than the remaining candidate cannot be declared as elected. The reasoning adopted in the said decision by the Apex Court is that it cannot be presumed that the votes secured by the disqualified candidates would have been wasted or would have been secured by the next candidate who has secured more votes. It was further reasoned in the said decision that if disqualified candidate was not permitted to contest the election then how the voters would have voted in favour of the candidate who has secured more votes than the other remaining candidates would be a question the realm of speculation and unpredictability. In such a situation, the Apex Court held that declaring the election of the returned candidate on the ground of his initial disqualification to contest the election by itself would not entitle the election petitioner or any other candidate to be declared elected. In the present case, regard being had to the fact situation of the present case, in which context was multi cornered, the aforesaid decision cited across the bar fully applicable and can be taken aid of for being applied to the fact situation of the present case. In the present case, regard being had to the fact situation of the present case, in which context was multi cornered, the aforesaid decision cited across the bar fully applicable and can be taken aid of for being applied to the fact situation of the present case. In the view of foregoing discussions, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed in part and in consequence, the order passed by Election Tribunal dated 30.4.2006 is quashed and election of Opp. Party No. 9 is declared invalid. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no other relief can be granted. In view of the fact that election of the respondent No. 9 has been declared invalid, it is directed that fresh election shall take place accordingly. In the facts and circumstances, there would be no order as to costs.” 5. The petitioner filed a Review Petition No. 250427 of 2006 for recalling/modifying the order dated 22.11.2006 to the extent that since the elections of respondent No. 9 were declared illegal, the Vice Chancellor be directed to take a decision within specified period. The Court by its order dated 30.11.2006 modified the earlier directions of holding fresh elections and directed that the petitioner may file fresh representation bringing all the facts to the notice of the Vice-Chancellor, who upon receipt of the representation shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after holding opportunity of hearing to all the parties. The relevant part of the review order is as follows: “I have bestowed my most anxious considerations to the arguments across the bar and have also perused the materials on record and also the facts to which attention of the Court was drawn by way of review application. In view of undisputed fact that no election can take place before expiry of the term of the Students Union, of Allahabad University, and also regard being had to the case laws cited across the bar, this Court is of the view that direction to hold fresh election of the President of the Students Union of Allahabad University requires modifications. In view of the above discussions, this Court veers round to the view that the Vice-Chancellor who is also patron of Students Union of Allahabad University is a competent authority under the Constitution of the Union to pass appropriate orders in such a situation. In view of the above discussions, this Court veers round to the view that the Vice-Chancellor who is also patron of Students Union of Allahabad University is a competent authority under the Constitution of the Union to pass appropriate orders in such a situation. In this connection, it is directed that the petitioner may file a fresh representation bringing all these facts to the notice of the Vice Chancellor who upon receipt of such representation shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to all parties. It needs hardly be said that upon receipt of representation, the Vice-Chancellor shall pass appropriate orders expeditiously within a period not exceeding one week. In the result the petitioner shall stand disposed of in terms of the above directions. A certified copy of this order be supplied to the learned counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges to day.” 6. The petitioner filed a detailed representation on which the Vice Chancellor of Allahabad University after hearing all the concerned parties passed the order dated 6.12.2006 giving rise to this writ petition. In order to appreciate the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner it is necessary to reproduce the entire order : “December 6, 2006 I received the honourable High Court’s order dated 30th November, 2006 with reference to Mr. Raghunath Dwivedi’s writ petition. I complied with the order by inviting all the concerned parties namely Mr. Ajit Yadav. Mr. Raghunath Dwivedi, Mr. Rajesh Singh and Mr. Brajain Mishra on 6th December, 2006 at 16.00 at my office. I heard their respective arguments and read the relevant papers as well as documents that they submitted to my office. Having considered the matter quite carefully, I am of the view that : 1. in P.K. Khandare v. Khandare, (2000) 5 SCC 658, it was unambiguously concluded by the Supreme Court that in case of the multi-cornered contest, even if the elected candidate is found to be disqualified at a later stage, the second candidate who secured more number of votes than those still remaining in the fray cannot automatically be declared elected. 2. on the basis of the verdict delivered by the Apex Court in Khandare v. Khandare case the Honourable High Court of Allahabad in its order dated 22nd November 2006 in Mr. Dwivedi’s case neither declared Mr. 2. on the basis of the verdict delivered by the Apex Court in Khandare v. Khandare case the Honourable High Court of Allahabad in its order dated 22nd November 2006 in Mr. Dwivedi’s case neither declared Mr. Dwivedi as President of the Union nor opted to grant him any relief. 3. the clause 22 (a) of the Students Union constitution emphatically puts embargo on the powers of the Vice-Chancellor/Patron to decide such issues after 31st October, 2003. 4. the implementation of the recommendations of the Lyngdoh Committee report approved by the Supreme Court on 22nd September, 2006 concerning the Student Unions has become mandatory with immediate effect. Accordingly, a candidate cannot hold any office of the Union if he or she has crossed twenty-eight years of age. In view of the above, I am constrained to reject the representation submitted by Mr. Dwivedi and others. Let me also add that I had sought legal advice from Mr. Amarendra Sharan, the Honourable Additional Solicitor General for India, Supreme Court, New Delhi by raising a few pertinent questions related to the whole issue. The advise is starkly clear. Sd/- R.G. Harshe” 7. Shri Shailendra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the judgment in P.K. Khandare is wrongly construed. The Vice-Chancellor should have directed to hold the fresh election in accordance with the prevailing law i.e. Constitution of Allahabad University Union, 2003-04. The Vice-Chancellor did not consider the entire material produced by the petitioner before him, which included the decision taken by the Vice-Chancellors of other universities in similar circumstances. He submits that the Vice-Chancellor has incorrectly held that he does not have any power under Clause 22(a) to pass any order. According to Shri Shailendra the Vice-Chancellor has not obeyed the order of the Court in which he was directed to hold the elections of the office of the President. He submits that the recommendations of Lyngdoh Committee were approved by Supreme Court on 22.9.2006 and thus these recommendations are applicable only after the relevant statutes are amended of the elections to be held for academic session 2006-07. Until then Section 45 (2) of Allahabad University Act, 2005 provides that the old ordinances will continue to apply. Shri Shailendra expressed his objections to the Vice Chancellor taking opinion from the Addl. Solicitor General of India, Supreme Court, New Delhi. Until then Section 45 (2) of Allahabad University Act, 2005 provides that the old ordinances will continue to apply. Shri Shailendra expressed his objections to the Vice Chancellor taking opinion from the Addl. Solicitor General of India, Supreme Court, New Delhi. According to Shri Shailendra once this Court directed the Vice Chancellor to take a decision, the Vice-Chancellor should not have allowed his decision to be based on the opinion of any counsel. 8. Shri P.S. Baghel appearing for the University of Allahabad submits that the writ petition is rendered infructuous. He submits that term of the office bearers of the Students Union elected in the elections held on 24.11.2005 of which results were declared on 9.12.2005 and office bearers took oath on 14.12.2005, has come to an end on 13.12.2005. The Vice-Chancellor acting in accordance with Clause 14 (6) of the Constitution of Allahabad University Union (2003-04) has requested the Board of Trustees to take over charge, and that the Board of Trustees have infact taken over the charge today. The term of the Students Union has come to an end. There is no question of giving any direction for holding fresh elections or to allow anyone to hold office and continue as office bearer of Students Union. Shri Baghel submits that in the review order, this Court had modified its earlier direction to hold elections and the judgment was modified accordingly. The Vice-Chancellor was only required to decide the representation after hearing all the parties and to pass appropriate orders expeditiously within one week. The Vice-Chancellor do not possess such powers under the Constitution of Allahabad University Union (2003-04). The powers vested in him to remove difficulties under Clause 22 (a) were applicable only up to 31.10.2003. 9. Shri Baghel submits that in last 15 days the Vice-Chancellor has been virtually besieged by the students, who have not allowed the university administration to function. The Vice-Chancellor has been called names, abused and has been pressurised by unauthorised persons to pass orders in favour of the petitioner. 10. Before considering the submissions, the court is dismayed as to how the petitioner aged 42 years is still continuing as a student in the University. On the information gathered from Shri Shailendra, I find that the petitioner joined B.Sc. degree course in CMP Degree College in 1979. 10. Before considering the submissions, the court is dismayed as to how the petitioner aged 42 years is still continuing as a student in the University. On the information gathered from Shri Shailendra, I find that the petitioner joined B.Sc. degree course in CMP Degree College in 1979. He passed Law first year from CMP Degree College, failed in second year and left the college. He joined MA Hindi in 1986 in the university and completed the course in 1990. He was enrolled as Ph.D. student with late Prof. Rakesh Chaturvedi, left the research on the death of his guide and then continued his studies of PGDBM in 1990 session, which he claims to have completed in 1995. The petitioner then joined MA (Philosophy) in the year 2000, which he did not complete and then under some strange orders of the Vice-Chancellor was allowed to join research in Hindi again in 2004. In last twenty seven years the petitioner has passed B.Sc. from CMP Degree College and M.A. (Hindi) and PGDBM. There was something seriously wrong with the university administration, which allowed the petitioner to continue and allowed him to be enrolled again and again in the courses without verifying his previous records. 11. The ‘New Constitution’ of the ‘Allahabad University Students Union’ (2003-04) was made in pursuance of the conference of the Vice-Chancellors of the State Universities of U.P. held at Lucknow on 10.1.2000. The constitution provides for holding election of session 2003-04 on or before 15th October, 2003. It appears that the Executive Council, which made the Constitution, was not going to meet very soon, and it was expected that new constitution may give rise to same difficulties, special powers were given to the Vice Chancellor under Clause 22 (a) for removing difficulties in any respect arising from inconsistencies or contradictions or absence of provisions in the regulations or in the rules made thereunder by the Executive Council. The provision to Clause 22 (a) restricted the period of exercise of such powers only upto October 31, 2003 apparently since Clause 13 (a) provided the elections of Session 2003-04 to take place on a date or dates not later than October 15, 2003. The provision to Clause 22 (a) restricted the period of exercise of such powers only upto October 31, 2003 apparently since Clause 13 (a) provided the elections of Session 2003-04 to take place on a date or dates not later than October 15, 2003. Clause 22 provides : “22(a) The Patron may, for the purpose of removing any difficulty in any respect arising from inconsistency or contradictions or absence of provisions in these Regulations or in the rules made thereunder by the Executive Council, pass such orders as he may deem necessary or expedient and each such order shall be reported to the Executive Council : Provided that no such order shall be made after October 31, 2003. (b) No order under sub-clause (a) shall be called in question on the ground that no difficulty specified therein existed or was required to be removed.” 12. Clause 14 of the New Constitution of the Allahabad University Union (2003-04) provides the term of the office of the member of Mahasabha and Mahaparishad : “14(a). The elected members of the Mahaparishad shall be inducted into office as soon as may be after the declaration of the results of the elections thereto, and the terms of the office of all members of the Mahasamiti and the Mahaparishad shall stand terminated upon the passage of twelve months from the first date on which the said elected members were so inducted or on the first date on which their successors are inducted into office, whichever is earlier. (b) In case the successors referred to in clause (a) are not inducted into office upon the passage of the period of twelve months specified therein, the Mahasamiti and the Mahaparishad shall stand dissolved and all their functions shall devolved on the Board of Trustees.” 13. A perusal of the clause would show that the period of Mahaparishad comes to an end on the passage of 12 months from the first date on which the elected members are inducted. The ‘induction’ is defined in ‘Collins Advanced Learner’s English Dictionary’ as follows : “Induction.—(1) Induction is a procedure or ceremony for introducing someone to a new job, organization, or way of life (2) Induction is a method of reasoning in which you use individual ideas or facts to give you a general rule or conclusion.” 14. The ‘induction’ is defined in ‘Collins Advanced Learner’s English Dictionary’ as follows : “Induction.—(1) Induction is a procedure or ceremony for introducing someone to a new job, organization, or way of life (2) Induction is a method of reasoning in which you use individual ideas or facts to give you a general rule or conclusion.” 14. The submissions of Shri Shailendra that the period of Mahasabha will begin from the first meeting cannot be accepted. The first meeting under Clause 10 (B) is held only when Mahaparishad is constituted by nomination provided in Clause B, C and D of Clause 10. There is no period fixed in the constitution to hold the meeting. The judgment relied upon by Shri Shailendra in Anugrah Narain Singh v. State of U.P., 2006(2) ADJ 90 relates to municipalities where Section 243-U of the U.P. Municipalities Act provides the terms of Municipality to begin from the first meeting. In the present there is no such provision in the new Constitution of the Allahabad University Union. 15. The submission that Vice Chancellor could not have taken opinion from any counsel is to be rejected outrightly. Every person exercising statutory powers or directed to act under orders of the Court has a right to seek legal opinion. Such opinion is a confidential communication between the person and his counsel, which he is not obliged to disclose. The Indian Evidence Act gives special protection to such communications. 16. I do not find that writ petitioner is bona fide student of University. The term of the office bearers of the Students Union, who were elected on 24.11.2005, the result was declared on 9.12.2005 and took oath of office on 14.12.2005 has come to an end. The writ petition is virtually infructuous. 17. The Vice Chancellor, University of Allahabad has referred to the implementation of the recommendations of Lyngdoh Committee report, approved by the Supreme Court on 22.9.2006, and has observed that the recommendations concerning the Students Unions has become mandatory with immediate effect. Accordingly a candidate cannot hold any office of the Union if he or she has crossed twenty eight years of age. The Students Unions are constituted to coordinate between students and the university administration on issues of students’ welfare. The resolution of such issues require students’ participation through the Students Unions. Accordingly a candidate cannot hold any office of the Union if he or she has crossed twenty eight years of age. The Students Unions are constituted to coordinate between students and the university administration on issues of students’ welfare. The resolution of such issues require students’ participation through the Students Unions. The Unions also provide the opportunity to the students to learn the concept of democratic functioning of the institutions. The Student Unions should be constituted with bona fide students with genuine concerns of students’ welfare. They should not be allowed to become platforms for political activities to vitiate the academic atmosphere in the university and colleges. 18. In University of Kerala v. Council, Principals’ Colleges, Kerala and others, SLP (C) Nos. 24295-25299/2004 the Supreme Court directed the Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India on 12.12.2005 to constitute a committee to submit a report, making suggestions and recommendations relating to Student Unions. The Committee was constituted under the Chairmanship of Mr. J.M. Lyngdoh. It has submitted its report to the Supreme Court, which was accepted by Hon’ble Supreme Court by its order dated 22.9.2006 reported in (2006) 8 SCC 304. The recommendations effectively deals with menace of students’ politics effecting the academic atmosphere of the universities across the country. Para 6.5 of the report provides for eligibility criteria for candidates to contest the elections : “6.5 Eligibility Criteria for Candidates 6.5.1 Under graduate students between the ages of 17 and 22 may contest elections. This age range may be appropriately relaxed in the case of professional colleges, where courses often range between 4 to 5 years. 6.5.2 For Post Graduate Students the maximum age limit to legitimately contest and election would be 24-25 years. 6.5.3 For research Students the maximum age limit to legitimately contest an election would be 28 years. 6.5.4 Although, the Committee would refrain from prescribing any particular minimum marks to be attained by candidate, the candidate should in no event have any academic arrears in the year of contesting the election. 6.5.5 The candidate should have attained the minimum percentage of attendance as prescribed by the university or 75% attendance, whichever is higher. 6.5.6 The candidate shall have one opportunity to contest for the post of office bearer, and two opportunities to contest for the post of an executive member. 6.5.5 The candidate should have attained the minimum percentage of attendance as prescribed by the university or 75% attendance, whichever is higher. 6.5.6 The candidate shall have one opportunity to contest for the post of office bearer, and two opportunities to contest for the post of an executive member. 6.5.7 The candidate shall not have a previous criminal record, that is to say he should not have been tried and/or convicted of any criminal offence or misdemeanor. The candidate shall also not have been subject to any disciplinary action by the University authorities. 6.5.8 The candidate must be a regular, full time student of the college/university and should not distance/proximate education student. That is to say that all eligible candidates must be enrolled in a full time course, the course duration being least one year.” 19. The Lyngdoh Committee has made several other recommendations for elections to unions. The Supreme Court found that these suggestions are wholesome and has directed that the suggestions be implemented, as and when necessity so arises. The recommendations have been adopted by Hon’ble Supreme Court as an interim measure and to be followed in all colleges’/university’s elections till further orders. 20. The directions of Supreme Court given on 22.9.2006 have become law of the country are binding on all authorities in India under Art. 141 of the Constitution of India. To clear the doubts, the Supreme Court has directed the Addl. Solicitor General appearing in the matter to communicate the order to the respective States and Union territories to take necessary action, to ensure compliance of the order. Any person acting in contravention of the orders, will be in direct contempt of the orders of Hon’ble Supreme Court. The order of Hon’ble Supreme Court, of necessity require university Ordinances/Regulations to incorporate the recommendations made by Lyngdoh Committee. It will also require amendments of the regulations of the Allahabad University Union. Shri P.S. Baghel informs the Court that necessary action in this regard is being taken by the University and that very soon the regulations incorporating the Lyngdoh Committee recommendation will be put in place. 21. It will also require amendments of the regulations of the Allahabad University Union. Shri P.S. Baghel informs the Court that necessary action in this regard is being taken by the University and that very soon the regulations incorporating the Lyngdoh Committee recommendation will be put in place. 21. Although it is not necessary, the Court feels that in order to allay any doubts in the mind of the University authorities, teachers, students and all these, who are concerned that these directions must be given effect and that elections in Allahabad University or for that matter elections in any university in the State, have to be held, in accordance with and by following the Lyngdoh Committee recommendations. These recommendations have been accepted by the Supreme Court and are binding on all universities across the country. The agitation of students in several universities in the State of U.P. appears to be the result of some misgivings that these recommendations are not to be followed until the ordinances/recommendations are made in that regard. Let the doubts be cleared. The Court, therefore, issues a positive direction to all the universities in the State to follow the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court accepting Lyngdoh Committee recommendations made on 22.9.2006, subject to orders, which may be passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter pending before it. 22. The submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner that Vice-Chancellor has not taken into account all the material placed by the petitioner including some precedents of other universities, deserved to be rejected. Firstly these precedents have no binding effect, and secondly the regulations on the Allahabad University Union did not provide for any such power. After the recommendations of Lyngdoh Committee have been accepted by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 22.9.2006, the Vice-Chancellor was not required to follow any such precedents. 23. The writ petition is dismissed with observation that an enquiry be initiated about the academic background of the petitioner, both to ascertain whether he is bona fide student and also to provide such measures, which may not provide opportunity to such persons to continue on the campus of the university for decades altogether. The petitioner shall pay Rs. 5,000/- as cost of this petition to the university. ———