( 1 ) THIS appeal has been preferred against an order of Mr. Justice Mathur by which he dismissed a petition filed by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution.

( 2 ) THE facts as have been found by the learned Judge (and no attempt was made before us to challenge those findings) are that the appellant was a student studying for M. Sc. (Technical)Previous Examination of the Banaras Hindu University. In Mav 1959 he was appearing at that examination. The paper which he was answering in that connection on 6-5-1959 was the paper on Industrial Chemistry. Sri Section N. Roy Chaudhary was the invigilator at the examination. Dr. Section Prasad was the Superintendent. At about 9. 30 a. m. while the examination was continuing the invigilator recovered a piece o paper from under the thigh, of the appellant. It contained certain writings which related to the paper which the appellant was answering. While the paper was being taken out it got torn into two pieces. The appellant took one of the pieces and tore it into bits. The other piece was taken by the invigilator. He took the appellant to the seat of the Superintendent. The appellant was told about what had happened and was asked to give his explanation on a printed form. The appellant, however, said that he would submit his explanation after the examination was over. The invigilator and the Superintendent of the examination then wrote out their own reports on the printed form. After the examination was over at 10 a. m. the appellant went to the Superintendent. He was given the printed form on which the reports of the invigilator and the Superintendent had already been written and was asked to write his own explanation after reading the said reports. He then wrote out on that form :

"i have no concern with that paper and also do not know how it was found near roe. For information of your Sir, I may add that I have been shown that paper that is not mine writing. "

( 3 ) THE printed form containing the reports of the invigilator and the Superintendent as well as the explanation of the appellant was in due course forwarded to the Academic Council of the banaras Hindu University which passed a resolution on the 8th June 1959 by which it decided to withhold the result of the appellant in respect of the examination in question, rusticated him for one year for using unfair means at the examination and also directed that ho would not be permitted to appear at any of the University examinations before 1960. The Registrar of the University by his order dated the 11th of June 1959 communicated this decision to the appellant. The appellant submitted two representations to the Vice-Chancellor but without success. He then filed the Writ petition out of which this appeal has arisen. He prayed that the order of the Registrar as well as the resolution of the Academic Council be quashed by a writ of certiorari. He also wanted a mandamus to be issued to the authorities of the University commanding them to declare his result for the examination and not to interfere with his right of pursuing for the M. Sc. (Technical) Final Examination.

( 4 ) THE main ground that was urged to support the petitiion was that the punishing authority in the present case was the Academic Council. It , had not itself given any opportunity to the appellant to offer his explanation and had not permitted him to cross-examine the invigilator or the superintendent or to lead his own evidence. He had thus been condemned without being heard only on the basis of the report that had been submitted by the Superintendent of the Examination. This, lit was contended, amounted to a serious breach of the principles of natural justice and on that account the resolution and the order were liable to be quashed.

( 5 ) THE contention was not accepted by the learned Judge who was of opinion that the Academic council was in the case of tbe appellant acting as an administrative body, that the explanation of the appellant had bee