1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2992 OF 2010 Atul S/o Yashwant Bhagwat .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents Shri H. V. Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri N. B. Khandare, Government Pleader for the Respondent No. 1. Shri A. R. Nikam, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2. The Respondent No. 3 deleted. CORAM : P. V. HARDAS AND N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 29TH JULY, 2010. PER COURT : . This is a petition which takes exception to the punishment imposed on the petitioner of cancellation of the examination performance in the IInd year D. Ed. examination held in September, 2009 and debarring the petitioner for further two examinations on account of the charge of using unfair means being established against the petitioner. 2 2. The petitioner who was a student appearing in the IInd Year D. Ed. examination was apprehended while using unfair means in the examination. Since certain photo copies of the documents were found in the possession of the petitioner, the petitioner was answering paper of English on 16.09.2009 and was apprehended with the material in his possession. Show cause notice came to be issued and an enquiry came to be conducted. In the enquiry the petitioner was found guilty having used unfair means. The defence of the petitioner is that the material was drawn from the student next to him. 3. We have perused the record and we have inspected the material which was seized from the petitioner. The material comprises of photo copies of certain pages from the text book. The aforesaid material relates to the paper of English. Therefore, nexus is established between the material which was seized and the paper which was being answered by the petitioner. We have also perused the material and we do not find any flaw in the nature of the enquiry and the reasonable opportunity was made available to the petitioner. In such circumstances, we do not find any ground for interference either with the findings of the respondents or the punishment which is imposed on the petitioner. 3 4. Resultantly this petition being without merit is summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [ P. V. HARDAS, J.] bsb/July 10