( 1 ) THESE appeals arise out of an order made in the writ petitions filed by the appellants in which they challenged an order made by the Principal of the respondent-College expelling them from the college with effect from 20th November, 1995.

( 2 ) ON the allegation that on the night of 13-11-1995 at about 11. 30 p. m. the bust of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar installed in front of the Academic floor of the respondent-college was desecrated, defiled and several acts of misconduct were allegedly committed by some students of the college an enquiry was instituted. After recording the statements of 7 persons and on intimation to the students who were allegedly involved in the incident, of whom 4 appeared before the respondent, the Principal took action indicated above. Aggrieved by that action, the appellants preferred writ petitions challenging the same.

( 3 ) BEFORE the learned single Judge, the contentions urged are : (i) that the principles of natural justice have not been duly observed consistent with the gravity of the charge and the action taken thereof; (ii) that even on the material available on record, no reasonable person could draw an inference of guilt against the appellants so as to hold that the appellants are liable for the misconduct alleged against them; (iii) that under S. 62 of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976 the final authority in the matter of discipline is the Vice - Chancellor and therefore the Principal could not take any action in the matter, and (iv) that the only power that could have been exercised by the respondent being the Head of the Institution is to the extent of 'rustication' not amounting to 'explusion. ' The learned single Judge held that the principles of natural justice applicable in a particular case will have to be borne in mind and there cannot be any uniform or universal rule applicable to all cases. Considering the nature of the allegation made against the appellants, the Principal had to act with necessary despatch and therefore the enquiry held by him was fair and just and the applants herein had reasonable opportunity to participate in the proceedings before the Principal and therefore it could not be said that there was any violation of principles of natural justice.

( 4 ) THE learned single Judge on examination of the material on record was of the view that there was sufficient material to find the appellants guilty of charges levelled against them. On the question whether the Principal had the authority to take disciplinary action against the students, the learned single Judge held in favour of the respondent that under S. 62 (2) (b) of the Act a punishment of rustication from college could be imposed by the Head of the Institution. The expression 'rustication' used in S. 62 (2) (b) includes within its sweep the expression 'explusion' of student also and therefore rejected the contention raised on behalf of the appellants.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent had raised a contention that the writ petition was not maintainable against a private college. The learned single Judge adverting to the contention raised by the respondent that the college being run by a Trust is not a State of Instrumentality of State for purpose of Art. 12 of the Constitution of India rejected the same relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib, AIR 1981 SC 487 and it was also noticed that the Principal of the College was exercising certain statutory powers. The learned single Judge also noticed that the law is well settled that such petitions are maintainable.

( 6 ) FIRST we shall take up the question raised on behalf of the respondent that the writ petition is not maintainable inasmuch as the respondent is run by a private Trust. It is no doubt true that an institution run by a private Trust is not an instrumentality of State for purpose of Art. 12 of the Constitution of India unless it falls within the rule laid down by the Supreme Court in