D.H.WAGHELA, J.

1. Amendment, as per the Draft Amendment dated 06.08.2012 in Writ Petition (PIL) No.169 of 2012 is allowed. Both the petitions and civil application are, by consent and at the request of learned counsel appearing for the parties, heard for final disposal and disposed by this common judgment. SCA No.10780 of 2012 is filed by two members of the Court (popularly known as 'Senate') and members of the Executive Council of respondent No.1, the Gujarat University. They are aggrieved by inaction of the respondents in not notifying and conducting election of the Executive Council despite the election programme and date of election having been fixed by the then Vice Chancellor of the University and such programme having been unanimously approved by the Executive Council of the University of which the term is expiring on 30.08.2012. According to the petition, extensive powers and duties of the Executive Council are prescribed under section 20 of the Gujarat University Act, 1949 (for short, “the Act”). The Executive Council has to be constituted in accordance with section 19 of the Act and it consists of 13 representatives elected by the Court, two members elected by the Academic Council, 4 persons nominated by the State Government, two members nominated by the Hon'ble Chancellor from amongst the members of the Court, besides one representative of the governing bodies of affiliated colleges elected by the Court. By virtue of the provision of sub-section (2) of section 19, the term of office of the elected and nominated members is restricted to three years. Besides such 15 elected and seven nominated members of the Council, it consists of the Vice Chancellor, the pro-Vice Chancellor, if any, the Director of Higher Education, the Director of Technical Education and the Director of Health and Medical Services & Medical Education. By virtue of the provisions of sections 28 and 29 of the Act, the Court of the University is empowered to make, amend, repeal or add to statutes and election to the authorities of the University has to be held in accordance with Chapter XII according to Statute 137. And according to Statute 138, subject to section 56 of the Act, the Vice Chancellor has the power to fix the date of election. Statute 161 of Chapter XIII provides that, notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in the Statutes, election of the Executive Council has to be held in accordance with the statutes and in the manner prescribed in Statute 159.

2. With the above backdrop of statutory provisions, it is averred for the petitioners that considering the importance of the Executive Council and the role it plays in the administration of the University and with a view to ensuring that it is duly elected in time, the then Vice Chancellor had fixed 30.08.2012 as the date for election of the Council. The Vice Chancellor had also fixed the election programme with dates for conducting various steps for the election. That programme was declared in the meeting held on 09.05.2012 of the Executive Council and it was unanimously approved by the entire Council, which included respondent No.2, who is, by now, the pro-Vice Chancellor and exercising the powers of the Vice Chancellor. Pursuant to the resolution approved in the subsequent meeting of the Executive Council held on 23.6.2012, the In-charge Registrar, respondent No.3 herein, had already initiated the process for constituting new Executive Council and, after obtaining approval of respondent No.2, addressed letters dated 18.7.2012 to the State Government as well as the Hon'ble Chancellor requesting them to nominate representatives to the Executive Council under section 19 of the Act. Accordingly, the Registrar was required to notify the election on 03.08.2012 under Statute 161 (1); but he did not do so. The petitioners have averred and alleged that they came to know that respondent Nos.2 and 3, under pressure of the State Government, wanted to delay/postpone the election and, there