M. L. CHATURVEDI, J.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition and six others, connected with it, arise out of the unseemly incidents which happened in the Banaras Hindu University in the autumn of last year. As a consequence number of students were awarded punishments of fine, rustication and expulsion, and these writ petitions are from students, who have either been rusticated or expelled from the University. The points that arise for decision in all these writ petitions are the same and the writ petitions can consequently be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment. While referring to particular facts. I shall refer to the facts of the case of Writ Petition No. 356 of 1959, Rana Pratap Singh v. Deputy Registrar, Banaras Hindu University and others.

( 2 ) RANA Pratap Singh petitioner was a student of B. A. Final class of the University. He received a letter dated the 29th October 1958, which contained three charges against him and direction to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him by the University authorities. He was asked to submit his explanation within five days of the receipt of the letter. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the Chief Proctor, a copy of which has been filed and marked annexure B. In his explanation the petitioner denied the correctness of all the charges framed against him. Meetings of the Standing Committee of the Academic Council were held on the 25th November 1958 and some subsequent dates. It is admitted that the students were not required to be present at these meetings and on the 4th December 1958 a letter was sent to the petitioner intimating to him the fact that the Standing; Committee had rusticated him for a period of two years with effect from the 25th November 1958, for misconduct and indiscipline. It appears that the order rusticating the petitioner was circulated to all Registrars of the Universities situate within the territories of the Indian Union. The present petition was filed on the 4th February 1959 with the prayers that a writ in the nature of certiorari be issued asking the respondents to bring up the record of the case before this Court so that the order dated the 4th December 1958 may be quashed, and that a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued commanding the respondents not to interfere with the petitioners pursuit of his academic career in the Banaras Hindu University.

( 3 ) A number of averments have been made in affidavit, filed alone with the writ petition, which have been denied in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents and have been reiterated in the rejoinder affidavit. But most of those facts are not relevant for the consideration of the points which have been clearly and succinctly placed before me by Mr. S. N. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Dwivedi has urged that the Standing Committee of the academic Council had no power to pass the impugned orders of punishment against the petitioners and it was only the Academic Council which could have passed such orders. His second submission is that even the Standing Committee has not applied its own mind to the question of the guilt of the students whom it punished and meted out the punishments because another Committee appointed by the Vice-Chancellor had found the students, including the petitioners, guilty of the commission of the acts for which they were charged,

( 4 ) MR. Gopi Nath Kunzru, learned counsel for the respondents, has countered the above submissions and has further urged that the writ petitions should be dismissed because other suitable remedies were open to the petitioners, which they failed to avail of. These remedies are said to be representations to the Academic Council and to the Visitor of the University, namely, the President of the Union of India. It has also been contended that punishments have been imposed on students of the University and the matter being of a domestic nature, the Court should not interfere. I shall now proceed to consid

Click Here to Read the rest of this document