-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 1786 OF 2008

Mega Vishwanath Iyer, age 19 years,

)

of Mumbai, Indian Inhabitant, Occupation student,

)

residing at Flat No. A-702, Eden – III, Central Avenue, )

Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai-400 076

)... Petitioner.

Versus

1. Unfair Means Enquiry Committee of S.K. Somaiya

)

College of Arts, Science and Commerce.

)

2. S.K. Somaiya College of Arts, Science and

)

Commerce.

)

3. Parvati Venkatesh,

)

Principal, S.K. Somaiya College of Arts, Science and )

Commerce.

)

4. Dr. Sangeeta Kohli, Convenor,

)

Unfair Means Inquiry Committee.

)

5. Prof. Charlotte Braganza, Member,

)

Unfair Means Inquiry Committee.

)

6. Prof. Manali Londhe, Member,

)

Unfair Means Inquiry Committee.

)

7. Prof. Yogesh Patel, Member,

)

Unfair Means Inquiry Committee.

)

8. Prof. D. Kembulkar, Member,

)

Unfair Means Inquiry Committee.

)

9. Prof. M.S. Deshmukh,

)

Invitee of Unfair Means Inquiry Committee.

)

All having their address at Vidya Nagar,

)

Vidyavihar, Mumbai-400 077

)

10.The Vice-Chancellor,

)

University of Mumbai, University Campus,

)

Fort, Mumbai-400 020

)..Respondents

Mr. Joaquim Reis, instructed by Mr. Kunal Cheema, for the petitioner.

Mr. K.K. Jadhav for respondent Nos. 1 to 9.

Mr. Rui Rodrigues for respondent No.10.

-2-

CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR &

A.A. SAYED,

JJ.

DATE: AUGUST 28, 2008.

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per P.B. Majmudar, J.)

Rule. Learned counsel appearing for respective respondents

waive service of rule. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for

the parties, Rule made returnable forthwith.

2.

“No mobile phone in the examination hall PLEASE “ should be the

message which is required to be conveyed by the academic institutions to

the students community at large. The point involved in this petition is in

connection with the punishment awarded to the petitioner for taking mobile

phone in the examination hall.

3.

The petitioner had appeared for the First Year B.M.S.

Examination held in March, 2008. At the time of appearing for “Introduction

of Computers Paper” it was found that the petitioner entered the examination

hall with the mobile phone in her possession. The case of the petitioner is

that even though she was unintentionally carrying her mobile phone in her

pocket, she immediately handed it over within ten minutes to the Supervisor

and she had not taken advantage of the same in any manner and that,

therefore, the penalty awarded to her by the Unfair Means Enquiry

-3-

Committee of S.K. Somaiya College of Arts, Science and Commerce

(hereafter “the Committee”) is not in accordance with law.

4.

It is not in dispute that at the time of entering the examination

hall, the petitioner was having the mobile phone with her, though it may be

true that she might have handed over the same later on, may be within short

time after the commencement of the examination. On the aforesaid act on

the part of petitioner of taking mobile in the examination hall, she was

subjected to proceedings which were conducted by the Committee. We

have perused the proceedings of the enquiry which are annexed at Exhibit-

L to the petition. The enquiry was conducted on 24^th June, 2008 wherein six

members were present which included the member who was also invited in

the Committee proceedings. As per the notings of the said Committee, at

page 75, the following question was asked by the Committee Members to

her viz.

“Do you know there are some exam related instructions on

the front page of the main answer sheet?

Yes. I do know but I could not read them fully.”

At page 79, there is a reference to the following question by the Committee.

“Do you want to say anything further?

Yes. My humble request is that please make the decision if

a punishment shall be a minor one because this has

-4-

happened unintentionally and not because of purpose.

Please accept the