Present appeal, under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, is directed against the order dated 25.03.2010 whereby the learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition filed against the report (of January 2010) submitted by the Institute Level Anti-Ragging Committee {hereinafter referred to as the ILARC or the Committee } and is also directed against the order - circular dated 01.02.2010 rusticating the petitioner (and other 5 students who have not challenged the order) from pursuing the studies for 2 semesters passed by the respondent No.2-institute. The appellant (alongwith other 5 students) has been also debarred from representing the institute in any regional, national or international tournaments, etc. and from training and placement programmes.

1.1 The impugned action by the respondent No.2-institute is said to have been taken pursuant to the proceedings before the ILARC in relation to an incidence of ragging caused by certain senior students (which reportedly included the appellant) of the respondent No.2-institute.

1.2 By virtue of the very same circular/order dated 01.02.2010 the appellant has been permitted to again get registered for and to re-start, his studies and pursue it further, from the academic year 2010-2011 (Spring/Even semester-2011).

2. At this stage, it deserves to be mentioned that during the hearing before us, it was submitted that the other 5 students who also have been rusticated accepted the decision.

3. It appears from the impugned order by the learned Single Judge that the appellant had, at one stage, thought of withdrawing the petition but subsequently the appellant appears to have preferred to pursue the petition. In this context, the learned Single Judge has noted, in para 2 of the order, as follows:-

2. This petition was heard at length in the morning and Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, learned advocate has made his submission. He requested the Court to adjourn the matter to seek instruction for withdrawal of the petition. The matter is, therefore, kept at 2.30 p.m. At 2.30 p.m., Mr. Asim Pandya, learned advocate has made his submission......

4. From the impugned order, it appears that the appellant had challenged the said decision and the action of the respondents on two grounds raised during the hearing before the learned Single Judge viz. (a) the constitution of the Committee was unlawful inasmuch as the Committee was not constituted as per the regulations, and (b) the report submitted by the ILARC and the order are in violation of principle of natural justice. After hearing the appellant and upon taking into account the material available on record, the learned Single Judge has rejected the petition by the impugned order dated 25.03.2010. Hence, present appeal.

5. Mr. Asim Pandya, learned advocate, has appeared for the appellant-petitioner. Mr. S.N.Shelat, learned senior counsel, with Mrs. V.D.Nanavati, learned advocate, has appeared for the respondent Nos.2 and 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties. We have also perused the record. In view of the appellant's request and with the consent of contesting opponents, the appeal is heard finally. Mrs. V.D.Nanavati, learned advocate for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 has waived notice of admission.5.1 Mr. Pandya, learned advocate for the appellant, has submitted that the constitution of the ILARC is not in consonance with the regulations dated 01.07.2009 framed and issued by AICTE which are binding to the institute. He also made reference of the Government Resolution dated 14.07.2009 constituting the Committees for prevention of ragging. Mr. Pandya also submitted that the constitution of the ILARC not being in consonance with the AICTE regulations, the ILARC was not competent to take-up any proceedings or to make recommendations hence the impugned decision and order are rendered illegal and void. He further submitted that the impugned order dated 01.02.2010 is in stark violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as the order