V. Ramasubramanian, J.

1. W.P. No. 24961 of 2013 was filed by three advocates by name (1) Mr. K. Elango, (2) Mr. P. Vijendran and (3) Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, seeking the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct (i) the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and (ii) the Madras High Court Advocates' Association to ensure that the election scheduled for Madras High Court Advocates' Association for the year 2013 was conducted in accordance with law declared by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 3401 and 3402 of 2003 dated 20.7.2012 and also in accordance with the statutory provisions contained in Section 9A of the Tamil Nadu Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1987 and Resolution No. 423 of 2012 dated 15.12.2012 passed by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu. On 4.9.2013, the writ petition was admitted and notice ordered.

2. Thereafter, another advocate by name Elephant G. Rajendran came up with a writ petition in W.P. No. 26025 of 2013, seeking the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the Election Officer of the Madras High Court Advocates' Association to follow certain guidelines in the elections scheduled to be held on 10.9.2013 to the Madras High Court Advocates' Association.

3. On 19.9.2013, the petitioner was permitted to serve notice of the above writ petition on the Members of the Teller Committee and thereafter on the respondent.

4. However, during the pendency of the above two writ petitions, the elections were conducted to the Madras High Court Advocates' Association, in October 2013 and a new set of Office Bearers assumed office. Therefore, the writ petitions did not come to the surface.

5. In March 2013, a group of 6 advocates joined together and sent individual representations to (i) the Registrar General of this Court, (ii) the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, (iii) the State of Tamil Nadu, (iv) the Madras High Court Advocates' Association, (v) the Law Association, (vi) the Women Lawyers' Association and (vii) the Madras Bar Association, seeking in effect, certain reforms to be made in the manner of working of the 4 Major Associations. Despite the receipt of the representations, none of those recipients chose to respond. Therefore, those 6 advocates joined together and came up with a writ petition in W.P. No. 13389 of 2015. The prayer in the writ petition was for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the Registrar General of the Court to issue appropriate directions to the recognized associations namely respondents 4 to 7 prescribing the manner in which elections ought to be conducted peacefully and democratically and also to provide for consequential penal action in case of violations of the guidelines.

6. On 30.4.2015 we ordered notice of motion in the said writ petition.

7. In the meantime, the petitioners in W.P. No. 24961 of 2013 came up with a miscellaneous petition in M.P. No. 1 of 2015 for amendment of the prayer. It was allowed on 17.4.2015. The amended prayer in W.P. No. 24961 of 2013 is for a writ of mandamus to direct the Bar Council and Madras High Court Advocates' Association to conduct all future elections to the Madras High Court Advocates' Association, in accordance with the law declared by the Supreme Court in its order dated 20.7.2012 passed in C.A. Nos. 3401 and 3402 of 2003 as well as in accordance with the statutory provisions contained in Section 9A of the Tamil Nadu Advocates' Welfare Fund Act, 1987 and the Resolution of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu dated 15.12.2012.

8. When all the three writ petitions came up for hearing on 4.6.2015 after completion of service of notice on all the respondents in the last of the writ petitions, the Office Bearers of the respondents 4, 6 and 7 agreed that certain reforms have become the need of the hour. Therefore, on 4.6.2015 we passed the following order in common in all the three writ petitions:

"Service of notice on all the respondents has been completed. The respondents as well as the petitioners and their counsel are free to file a set of Rules that can govern the future