An administrative body like the Academic Council of a University is not required to hold a regular enquiry by calling upon the examinee to submit additional explanation and to participate in the enquiry.

( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Calcutta Singh for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 11-6-1959 passed by the Registrar, Banaras Hindu university, respondent No. 1, and also Resolution No. 61 dated 8-6-1959 passed by the academic Council of the Banaras Hindu University on the basis of which the Registrar issued the order. A request was also made for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to declare the result of the petitioner of the M. Sc. (Tech.) Previous Examination, 1959, and not to interfere with the petitioners right of pursuing the M. Sc. (Tech.) Final Examination during the current session.

( 2 ) THE petitioner was a student studying in the M. Sc. (Technical) Previous Examination of the banaras Hindu University and in the month of May, 1959 was appearing in the Previous examination conducted by that University. He was examined on three different dates, May 1, 4 and 6, 1959, in theory papers and the practical examination finished on 18-5-1959. The incident which has led to the rustication of the petitioner for one year took place on 6-5-1959 at about 9. 30 A. M. when he was appearing in the Industrial Chemistry paper. The petitioners case is that the invigilator, meaning thereby Shri S. N. Roy Chaudhry, found a small chit of paper, about 6" x 3", lying on the floor near the petitioners chair, and on enquiry, the petitioner informed the invigilator that he had no knowledge of the paper nor was it in his hand-writing and that he had not in any way utilised the paper in answering questions. The Invigilator is said to have departed feeling satisfied, but at the close of the morning sitting of the examination when answer books were being collected, the said invigilator called upon the petitioner to accompany him to the room of the Superintendent Examination. The petitioners case further is that a blank printed form was handed over to him to answer certain querries; that no report had been entered in the printed form against columns meant for the report of the invigilator and the forwarding note of the Superintendent Examination; that he (petitioner)refused to fill in the printed form but he was threatened by the Superintendent Examination that if he did not fill in the form in question the matter would be decided against him ex parte on the basis of the reports which the invigilator and the Superintendent proposed to make to the registrar; and that it was then that he gave his explanation on the printed form denying the recovery of the paper from his possession. There is some difference in the explanation now furnished by the petitioner and as given in the form itself. Considering that one can make a mistake in good faith it will be proper to treat the explanation as contained in the form as fhe case of the petitioner. The explanation so furnished is as below:

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

( 3 ) THE petitioner was allowed to appear in the Practical examination but his examination was cancelled under a decision taken by the Academic Council of the Banaras Hindu University. It was on 15-6-1959 that the petitioner received a letter, annexure "a" to the affidavit, from the registrar of the Banaras Hindu University informing him that he had been rusticated for one year for using unfair means at the examination of 1959 and that the petitioner would not be permitted to appear at any of the University examination before 1960, vide Resolution No. 61 of the academic Council passed in its meeting held on 8-6-1959. The petitioners case is that this decision was taken without giving him an opportunity to meet charges levelled against him. The above decision is sought to be quashed on the ground that it violates the principles of natural justice. The petitioner made representations to the