JUDGMENT :

B.R. SARANGI, J.

Both the writ petitions, having arisen out of same cause of action, are taken up together and disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Petitioners in both the writ petitions are the students of IInd year LL.B. (Hons) of Madhusudan Law College, Cuttack (hereinafter referred to M.S. Law College). They have filed these writ petitions challenging order dated 18.11.2017 passed by the Principal-cum-Chairman, Anti Ragging Committee, M.S. Law College, Cuttack suspending them from the College from 18.11.2017 till 31.12.2017.

3. The factual matrix of the case in hand is that the general election of the College, pursuant to the Government notification, was scheduled to be held on 23.09.2017, but it was cancelled by the authority. However, on demand being made by the students, instead of election, selection procedure was adopted and representatives of the students were selected for the larger interest of the students. But a dispute arose between two groups of the students, during pre-election period, for which an FIR was lodged by one Anusuya Lenka before I.I.C. Malgodown P.S., which was registered Malgodown P.S. Case No. 207 dated 19.09.2017 under Sections 469, 500, 294 and 354 of I.P.C. read with Section 66(C) of the I.T. Act, 2000 against one Radhamadhab Das and his supporters. On the next day, i.e., 20.09.2017, a counter case was registered, vide Malgodwn P.S. Case No. 209/2017 under Sections 294, 323, 427 and 506/34 I.P.C. against the petitioners and others, at the instance of one Sujit Satapathy (supporter of Radhamadhaba Das). Due to disturbances in the College campus, for which the general election of the College was cancelled, a complaint was lodged before the Principal-cum-Chairman Anti Ragging Committee basing upon which show-cause notice was issued to the petitioners on 31.10.2017 directing them to appear before the Committee on 03.11.2017 and also present their views in writing before the Committee. In response to the same, show-cause reply was filed by the petitioners denying the allegation and request was made to close the proceeding, as it was an election dispute and no way a ragging matter. On consideration of such show-cause reply, the Anti Ragging Committee, vide order dated 03.11.2017, warned the petitioners stating that by misbehaving the complainant the petitioners had not done the right thing hence they were warned not to repeat the same. But since indiscipline situation was continuing, the Anti Ragging Committee directed for appearance of the petitioners on 14.11.2017 and 17.11.2017, but the petitioners did not turn up and they tried to avoid the authorities. Therefore, taking into consideration the allegations and their non-cooperation, the Anti Ragging Committee decided to suspend them from College till 31.12.2017 from the date of issuance of notice, i.e., dated 18.11.2017, which has been communicated by the Principal of M.S. Law College to the petitioners.

4. Mr. K. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously urged that the order dated 18.11.2017 suspending the petitioners from the College till 31.12.2017 has not been passed by following due procedure of law. More so, before passing the impugned order, the petitioners have not been given opportunity of hearing and, as such, there is violation of principle of nature justice. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed.

5. Mr. P.P. Behera, learned counsel, who usually appears for M.S. Law College, vide order dated 04.12.2017, was served with copies of the writ petitions and called upon to obtain instructions. The matter was next listed on 13.12.2017, when this Court directed to list it again on 18.12.2017 indicating the name of Mr. P.P. Behera in the cause list. Today, when the matter is taken up, Mr. P.K. Jena, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. P.P. Behera, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 states that the order dated 18.11.2017 passed by the authority is appealable, but instead of availing the alternati