SCA/23746/2006 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 23746 of 2006 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA Sd/- ================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? =================================== PAREKH CHIRAG BHASKARBHAI - Petitioner(s) Versus VEER NARMAD SOUTH GUJARAT UNIVERSITY - Respondent(s) =================================== Appearance : MR DHAVAL D VYAS for Petitioner(s) : 1, NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1, MR DC DAVE for Respondent(s) : 1, =================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA Date : 20/12/2006 ORAL JUDGMENT SCA/23746/2006 2/3 JUDGMENT 1 Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties. In light of the view that the Court is inclined to take, Rule. Mr.D.C. Dave, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent University is directed to waive service of Rule. With the consent of the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties the petition is taken up for final hearing. 2 The petitioner, a student in Commerce stream, studying in K.B.S. Sumeriya College of Professional Science & Commerce, Vapi was supposed to be taking exam in March-April, 2006 conducted by the respondent-University. It appears that there was leakage of certain examination papers for which criminal proceedings were initiated by the respondent-University wherein the petitioner was also one of the co-accused. Vide communication dated 9.10.2006 issued by Registrar of respondent-University the petitioner was informed that vide Notification dated 7.10.2006 the petitioner has been debarred from appearing in any University examination for a period of 10 years and from joining any affiliated Colleges or recognized Institutions of the respondent-University as the petitioner was found guilty of adopting unfair means at the examinations which the petitioner took. As a corollary the result of the petitioner was also cancelled. 3 The principal grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned order has been made without granting an opportunity of hearing before making the impugned order. Though the learned Advocate for the petitioner has made various submissions on merits it is not necessary to enter into any discussion of the same. On behalf of the SCA/23746/2006 3/3 JUDGMENT respondent-University the learned Advocate submitted that though technically it could be stated that no opportunity of hearing was granted, the same was not necessary in light of the undertaking given by the petitioner while seeking permission to take examinations. He therefore, urged that the grievance made by the petitioner was not warranted in light of the undertaking given by the petitioner. 4 As already stated hereinbefore, it is not necessary to discuss the merits of the contentions raised by either side. Once it is found that the impugned order was made in violation of principles of natural justice such an order cannot be justified. In the result, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The respondent- University is directed to grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today and take a fresh decision after taking into consideration the explanation tendered by the petitioner. 5 The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule made absolute. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- (D.A. Mehta, J) m.m.bhatt