-1- 2025:CGHC:6477 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2960 of 2019 Akhilesh Kumar Sahu S/o Ramshiroman Aged About 21 Years R/o Nariyal Kothi, Dayalband, Police Station City Kotwali, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Higher Education, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Atal University Through Registrar, Old High Court Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) WPC No. 2970 of 2019 Pradeep Kumar S/o Shrawan Kumar Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Parasvara, Post Office Palansari, Tehsil Pandaria, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Higher Education, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Hemchand Yadav University Through Registrar, Raipur Naka, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) WPC No. 2966 of 2019 1 - Chandra Shekhar Verma S/o S. R. Verma Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Simga, Tehsil Simga District Baloda Bazar Chhattisgarh, District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh. -2- 2 - Yashwani Manikpuri S/o Bhagwan Das Manikpuri Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Simga, Tehsil Simga District Baloda Bazar Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Higher Education, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University Through Registrar, Amanaka, G.E. Road, District Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Ms. Yogisha Singh Rajput, Advocate For State : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Deputy Advocate General For Respondent No.2 (WPC/2960/2019) : Mr. Vikas Dubey, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No.2 (WPC/ 2966/2019) : Mr. Avinash K. Mishra, on behalf of Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 05.02.2025 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would fairly submit that by efflux of time, these writ petitions have become infructuous. She prays for a direction to the respondent No.2/Universities to conduct elections in light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of University of Kerala v. Council, Principal, Colleges, Kerala & Ors., [(2006) 8 SCC 304]. 2. On the other hand, Mr. Vikas Dubey and Mr. Avinash K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 in WPC/2960/2019 & WPC/2966/2019 would submit that the university will comply with all the rules and regulations issued by the University Grants Commission -3- and the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 3. Mr. Vinay Pandey, learned Deputy Advocate General, would support the contention made by counsel for the respondent No.2. 4. Taking into consideration the fact that by efflux of time, these writ petitions have rendered infructuous. Accordingly, these petitions are dismissed being rendered infructuous. However, it is expected that the respondent No.2/Universities will comply with the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of University of Kerala v. Council, Principal, Colleges, Kerala & Ors. (supra). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim