Hon'ble TATIA, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Facts reveal that during colleges and universities Students' Union Elections lawlessness continued for several years and, therefore, not only private parties preferred the writ petitions, but the High Court in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India suo motu registered the Public Interest Litigation Writ Petitions. As back as in the year 1994 the High Court (at Jaipur Bench) issued some directions in the judgment dated 12th Sept., 2004 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5016/1994; The Rajasthan Advertising Association through its President vs. The Collector, Jaipur & Ors. on this issues. Then bunch of writ petitions were preferred by petitioners and one of which was by Sarita Choudhary at the Principal Seat of Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur. One another suo motu petition was registered by the Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench which in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5746/2003. Yet in another suo motu petition, being D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5545/2004, by order dated 10.8.2004 the Division Bench headed by the then Hon'ble Chief Justice directed the University of Rajasthan, Superintendent of Police and the Collector, Jaipur to show cause as why law and order was not enforced in the precincts of the University of Rajasthan and why the students were allowed to violate the directions given in writ petition No. 5016/1994, decided on 12.9.1996. 3. Then another writ petition was filed by Arvind Singh Rathore, which is D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2800/2005 at Principal Seat of the High Court at Jodhpur. The Sarita Choudhary's writ petition was already decided, therefore, the State of Rajasthan preferred D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 188/2002 and this D.B. Special Appeal was tagged with D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2800/2005- Arvind Sing Rathore vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. During the pendency of the writ petition No. 5545/2004 and writ petition No. 288/2005- Arvind Singh Rathore vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. and D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 188/2002- State of Rajasthan vs. Sarita Choudhary, the Division Bench at Jaipur decided the D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5746/2003 finally by the judgment dated 5.5.2005 wherein some directions were issued to the State Government including staying the Students' Union Elections. and D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 188/2002- State of Rajasthan vs. Sarita Choudhary, the Division Bench at Jaipur decided the D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5746/2003 finally by the judgment dated 5.5.2005 wherein some directions were issued to the State Government including staying the Students' Union Elections. In the judgment dated 5.5.2005 several other directions were also issued after taking note of the indiscipline and unruly atmosphere in the educational institutions including in the colleges and also universities during elections and thereafter. 4. It appears, before the directions were issued in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5746/2003 vide judgment dated 5.5.2005, already some steps were taken by some of the universities and colleges in view of various orders passed in Arvind Singh Rathore's and Sarita Choudhary's writ petition and in Special Appeal. Thereafter, the Division Bench at Principal Seat of Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur decided both the matters by common judgment dated 13.5.2005 after considering the judgment delivered by the Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition (Suo Motu) No. 5746/2003 dated 5.5.2005. 5. The Division Bench in judgment dated 13.5.2005 delivered in the case of Arvind Singh Rathore's case and Sarita Choudhary's case, as stated above, after fully considering the judgment delivered in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5746/2003, observed at page No. 17 of the judgment as under:- "....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..." 6. However, until such statutory rules were to be framed, this Court gave wide ranging directions to be followed. 7. However, until such statutory rules were to be framed, this Court gave wide ranging directions to be followed. 7. We need not to re-incorporate all the directions which were reproduced in the judgment dated 13.5.2005, but some observations made by the Division Bench will be relevant which are in judgment at page 23 of the judgment passed in the Arvind Singh Rathore's case and State's special appeal referred above which reads as under:- ".....The question involved in this Special Appeal is required to be considered from the wider perspective, as Students Union of a College or University can be said to be the laboratory of democratic governance of the Country. We look forward the future of the Country in the hands of the present youth in Colleges and Universities. Thus, there is a duty cast on the authorities and teachers concerning the Colleges and Universities responsible for the exemplary good conduct and behaviour of the students in general and office bearers of the Students Union in particular." 8. Then it was noted that "....State Government with a view to bring reforms in the election process and to make functioning of the Students Union more rational, issued directions under memorandum dated 17.8.2000 to all the Government and private College whether affiliated or not 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..." Then it has been observed"..... It was observed that the object of the restriction is to discourage the students to continue in the Institution only for the sake of contesting the election. With the past experience, it was observed that such candidates are found to pollute the atmosphere of the College or the Universities..." 9. Then it was concluded (at page No. 26 of the judgment dated 13.5.2005), "...As far as this Court is concerned, we have expressed ourselves and issued directions from time to time and, as such, nothing more is required to be done at our end. We hope and trust that Students and Teachers of the concerned Universities in the State of Rajasthan and their affiliated Colleges will follow the Code of Conduct and the directions given by this Court from time to time considering it to be their `dharma;..." 10. We hope and trust that Students and Teachers of the concerned Universities in the State of Rajasthan and their affiliated Colleges will follow the Code of Conduct and the directions given by this Court from time to time considering it to be their `dharma;..." 10. Then Division Bench again took note of the order dated 14.2.205 passed in above matters at page No. 29, which is as under:- "The monitoring by way of continuous mandamus soon yielded result. Elections in all the three Universities and colleges in 17 districts in the State of Rajasthan were held peacefully, free from violence. This has also brought discipline in university and college campus." 11. The Division Bench ultimately found that there should not be conflicting judgment to judgment delivered by the Division Bench at Jaipur in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5746/2003 made it clear by observing that "...this Court is seized with the matter in its endeavour to improve the academic atmosphere in Educational institutions in the State of Rajasthan, particularly the J.N.V. University Jodhpur, M.L.S. University Udaipur and Government & private Colleges affiliated to M.D.S. University, Ajmer of 17 Districts by way of continuous mandamus, we do not think that the Division Bench in Students Suo Moto Case by order dated 5.5.2005 intended to interfere and stay the proceedings in Sarita Choudhary's case, which has not only recognized right to form Students Union by democratic process but also regulating the student's activities even after election..." 12. That in Arvind Singh Rathore and Sarita Choudhary's case though the Division Bench in its judgment dated 13.5.2005 itself made it clear that the judgments dated 5.5.2005 and 13.5.2005 are not in conflict yet it has been made issue as some news were published in the newspapers projecting it that the two Division Benches of the Rajasthan High Court have delivered conflicting judgments and termed as "Judgment over judgment." Therefore, a review petition being D.B. Civil Review Petition No. 15/2005 was submitted seeking review of the order dated 13.5.2005 against refusing to make a reference in view of the projected conflict between the two judgments i.e., the judgment dated 5.5.2005 and 13.5.2005. That review application was decided by the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur vide order dated 18th May, 2005 and referred one question for consideration for large bench. 13. That review application was decided by the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur vide order dated 18th May, 2005 and referred one question for consideration for large bench. 13. A letter petition was received by the Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in relation to same subject matter referred above and that was registered as D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3711/2005. However, in this writ petition, no notices were issued to any of the parties. In this letter petition also, copies of the newspapers were annexed to show that the media under-stood the two judgments in conflict and further in this petition copy of the order dated 27.8.2003 passed in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4952/2003- Bhart Bhushan Pareek vs. Rajasthan University & Ors. and copy of the judgment delivered on earlier occasion by the Division Bench of this Court (Jaipur Bench)- Bharat Bhushan vs. Rajasthan University & Ors. reported in RLR 1989 Vol. 1 121 was also annexed. In this D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3711/2005, Dr. RD Gurjar, Former Principal of the College of Rajasthan University on oath submitted that election for universities' and colleges' students union have been politicized and criminalized to the extent of causing inconvenience to public. He place on record copies of the several news items to show that to what extent indiscipline in the Universities and Colleges reached. 14. The matter was already referred to the Larger Bench by the order of this Court passed in D.B. Civil Review Petition No. 15/2005 vide order dated 18.5.2005 referred above, by another order passed in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 01147/2005, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3711/2005 with D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5545/2004, the Division Bench of this Court headed by then Acting Chief Justice formulated and referred two more questions to the Larger Bench. 15. 15. In view of the above orders, the Larger Bench has been constituted for answering the following three questions:- "(1) Whether keeping in view the present educational scenario of violence and indiscipline among students in Universities and Colleges and in order to secure good academic atmosphere, the students union be continued to be constituted by democratic process of election or by selection on the basis of performance in examination?" (2) Whether the judgment/orders/directions passed by the principal seat at Jodhpur are applicable only to the 17 district and the judgment/order/ directions passed by the bench at Jaipur would not be applicable to the aforesaid 17 districts under the Jodhpur jurisdiction? (3) Whether elections should be held in the education institutions in the State of Rajasthan and if the answer to the question be in affirmative, what would be the time frame, mode of election and the regulating authority to conduct such election?" 16. The questions Nos. 1 and 3 are inter-related and they goes to the root of the matter, therefore, they could have been decided together by this judgment, but subsequent development rendered these two issues non-surviving issues because none of the parties before us disputed that at the relevant time when the writ petitions, represented or suo motu were entertained and the orders and judgments were delivered by the Single Benches or Division Benches of this Court, the indiscipline in the colleges and universities reached to its lowest level and we are also of the same view which is further fortified by the material ready placed on record particularly, in writ petition No. 3711/2005 (new number as D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11090/2009 after transfer to Principal Seat at Jodhpur). 17. The timely intervention of the two Division Benches of this Court, may be by two different decisions dated 5.52005 and 13.5.2005, the good results came out improving smooth running of the colleges and universities in the entire State of Rajasthan. 18. The situation was grave at relevant time cannot be disputed in view of the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court intervened and in some what similar situation and issued directions in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 2495/2004 in the case of University of Kerala vs. Council, Principal's College, Kerla & Ors. 18. The situation was grave at relevant time cannot be disputed in view of the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court intervened and in some what similar situation and issued directions in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 2495/2004 in the case of University of Kerala vs. Council, Principal's College, Kerla & Ors. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was concerned about the manner in which students' unions activities were carried on including the manner of election of the students' union throughout the country. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was concerned about the politicization/criminalization in such activities. The Hon'ble Supreme Court then by order dated 12.12.2005 directed appointment of a committee to find out the solution. The Ministry of Human Resources and Development, Union of India complied with the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 12.12.2005 and constituted the committee consisting of following members:- 1. Mr. J.M. Lyngdoh, Retd. Chief Election Commissioner (Chairman). 2. Dr. Zoya Hassan 3. Professor Pratap Bhanu Mehta 4. Dr. Daya Nand Dongaonkar (Secretary General of the Association of Indian Universities). 5. Two members to be appointed by the Ministry of Human Resources and Development. 19. This committee is well known as Lyngdoh Committee. The above committee looked into all the aspects of the matter after having wide consultations and after considering grievances of the teachers' and students' unions etc submitted its report dated 23rd May, 2006 to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 22nd Sept., 2006 directed for implementation of the report of the committee as an interim measure. The Hon'ble Supreme Court directed that recommendation of the committee shall be followed in all the colleges/universities elections until further order. 20. In present matters, learned Addl. Advocate General submitted an application before this Court on 17.2.2009 pointing out that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of University of Kerala (supra) issued directions to all the universities and colleges across the country to conduct the elections for the Students' Unions in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Lyngdoh Committee's report. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which is binding upon all the throughout the country, the State of Rajasthan and universities within the State of Rajasthan are bound to hold elections in accordance with the guidelines approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which is binding upon all the throughout the country, the State of Rajasthan and universities within the State of Rajasthan are bound to hold elections in accordance with the guidelines approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. This contention was submitted in the application for early hearing of all the matters with request to dispose of the reference and the writ petitions in terms of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 22nd Sept., 2006. This application was listed in court alongwith all the connected matters on 26th Nov., 2009. On 26th Nov., 2009 again learned Addl. Advocate General submitted that the State has principally decided to follow Lyngdoh Committe's report. However, learned Addl. Advocate General was permitted to place on record the report of the Lyngdoh Committee with proper instruction of the State Government. 21. In view of the above, the learned Addl. Advocate General placed on record the order from the State Government which is issued by the Principal Secretary, Higher Education, Government of Rajasthan, Education Department, Jaipur dated 1st Dec., 2009, which reads as under:- "Government of Rajasthan Education (Gr. 4) Department No. F3(54) Edu. 4/2002 Jaipur, dated Subject:-Writ Review No. 15/2005 Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association vs. State of Rajasthan. Ref:- Your letter dated 30.11.2009. Sir, With reference to your letter dated 30.11.2009 on the subject cited above, I writ to convey the consent of the State Government as follows:- "The State Government fully supports the recommendations made by the Lingdoh Committee. However, State of Rajasthan is of the view that the concept of nominations as an interim measures should not be spanned for a period of 5 number of years and transition from nomination to elections could be reduced to the minimum." Your Faithfully, SD/- (Tapesh Panwar) Pr. Secretary, Hr. Education. Copy to Assistant Director, College Education, Jodhpur & OIC in this case to submit affidavit as per the consent of the State Government." 22. The matter was listed today on 5th Dec., 2009 and at the request of learned Addl. Advocate General who sought short time to seek more instructions from the State Government, the matter was adjourned to be taken up at 2.00 PM. Addl. The matter was listed today on 5th Dec., 2009 and at the request of learned Addl. Advocate General who sought short time to seek more instructions from the State Government, the matter was adjourned to be taken up at 2.00 PM. Addl. Advocate General after obtaining further instructions from the State Government submitted that there is no ambiguity and the State Government has accepted the recommendations of the Lyngdoh Committee. 23. Since the State Government after thoughtful consideration and in the larger interest of the Students, Students' Unions, Teachers and to make a good working atmosphere in the colleges and universities decided to follow the recommendations given in the Lyngdoh Committee, therefore, due to subsequent development we hold that with the implementation of Lyngdoh Committee regarding the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court in the judgments dated 5.5.2005 and 13.5.2005 shall cease to operate because of total change in the circumstances as both the Division Benches' total endeavour was to see that there should be a good democratic process election in the colleges and universities and they may not be politicized and criminalized and that can be achieved by the effective steps to be taken by the State Government by making laws and persuading the Universities to take appropriate decision so that Students' unions elections can be conducted violence free, politics free and which may create good relationship between the students and college management/university management and also with teachers. 24. In view of the acceptance of Lyngdoh Committee's report by the State Government now there is no need of any direction of the Court. Now, all the elections in the colleges and universities in entire State of Rajasthan will be in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Lyngdoh Committee's report and for that purpose it is for the State and the Universities etc. to make appropriate amendments in their rules framed for conducting the elections of the students; unions in consonance with the Lyngdoh Committee's report and, thereafter, they may proceed to hold elections for the students' unions of the colleges and universities students' unions in according with Lyngdoh Committee. 25. to make appropriate amendments in their rules framed for conducting the elections of the students; unions in consonance with the Lyngdoh Committee's report and, thereafter, they may proceed to hold elections for the students' unions of the colleges and universities students' unions in according with Lyngdoh Committee. 25. Since the State has decided to implement the Lyngdoh Committee's report for entire State of Rajasthan, therefore, the question No. 2 whether the judgment/orders/directions passed by the principal seat at Jodhpur are applicable only to the 17 district and the judgment/order/directions passed by the bench at Jaipur would not be applicable to the aforesaid 17 districts under the Jodhpur jurisdiction does not survive as effect and operation of the above two judgments dated 5.5.2005 and 13.5.2005 ceased to operate by virtue of this decision accepting the State's decision to implement the Lyngdoh Committee's report, which shall be applicable to all the colleges and universities in the State of Rajasthan, which is also in consonance with the decision given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of University of Kerla (supra). 26. In view of the above reasons all the writ petitions and the review petition stands disposed of.