JAGDISH SAHAI, J. :- The following question has been referred to us by the Division Bench hearing Special Appeal No. 682 of 1964 which is directed against the judgment of S.N. Dwivedi, J., dated 20-8-1964 dismissing Writ Petition No. 5713 of 1963 filed by the appellant Gajadhar Prasad (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) :-

"Whether the Vice-Chancellor of the Allahabad University is required to perform quasi Judicial functions in inflicting punishments upon students for breach of discipline ?"

2. By means of an order, dated 2-12-1963 the Vice-Chancellor of the Allahabad University (Dr. Balbhadra Prasad) expelled the appellant "from the University with immediate effect" and ordered that he be not admitted to any class or examination of the University in future. One of the submissions made before the Division Bench was that the appellant had not been heard before the order mentioned above was passed against him. It is under these circumstances that the question arose whether the Vice-Chancellor performed purely administrative functions in inflicting punishments upon students for breach of discipline or is required to perform quasi judicial functions.

3. Section 12(4) of the Allahabad University Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) reads :-

"The Vice-Chancellor shall exercise general control over the affairs of the University and shall be responsible for the due maintenance of discipline therein."

Chapter XX of the Statutes deals with discipline and reads :-

"The Vice-Chancellor shall be responsible for maintaining discipline in the University and he shall have all powers necessary for the purpose."

These are the only provisions dealing with discipline in the University and the power of the Vice-Chancellor to inflict punishment on students. The Act, the Statutes, the Ordinances and the Regulations do not expressly provide for calling for an explanation and hearing a student before inflicting punishment upon him nor do they provide the procedure required to be followed by the Vice-Chancellor in such a matter. Actually, it is nowhere expressly stated that the Vice-Chancellor can punish a student. The power to punish is inferred from the words "and he shall have all powers necessary for the purpose" occurring in Chapter XX of the statutes and from the requirement of that statute as also of S. 12(4) of the Act that the Vice-Chancellor shall be responsible for the due maintenance of discipline in the University.

4. The Allahabad University, like other Universities, is an educational institution. Its primary function is to teach students and conduct examinations. Such power to punish its students as the Vice-Chancellor has is to secure smooth and proper running of the University. As is clear from the language of S. 12(4) of the Act and Chapter XX of the statutes punishment can only be inflicted upon a student if he has breached the discipline of the University and for no other reason. The punishment powers of the Vice-Chancellor must be judged in the setting of S. 6 of the Act which expressly provides that the University is open to all and ensures that no one would arbitrarily be deprived of the right to study in the University and the settled law that the right to receive education is a basic right in a democracy : (see S.M.N. Tripathi v. Dy. Inspector-General of Police, 1964 All LJ 554 : (AIR 1964 All 540) (FB). The Vice-Chancellor cannot remove a student from the rolls of the University

only because in his subjective opinion the student is an undesirable person or that he does not like the student. Clause 22 of the statutes provides that "the Dean of the student welfare shall be consulted by the Vice-Chancellor before taking action against a student on disciplinary grounds". Consultation with the Dean of student welfare is thus imperative and to that extent the Vice-Chancellor cannot act unilaterally. Clause 8 of the statutes deals with the appointment of the Proctor and Assistant Proctors and provides that the Vice-Chance