IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 15767 of 2009 Date of Decision: 29.1.2010. Sushant Khosla and others --Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. Vikas Bahl, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. P.C. Goyal, Addl. A.G., Punjab for respondent no.1. Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Advocate for respondents No.2 & 5. Mr. R.S. Bajaj, Advocate for respondents no.3 & 4. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) Pursuant to the order dated 19.1.2010 the petitioners have filled up their forms with the university. University in turn has forwarded the forms to respondent no.4-college, which has further forwarded the forms along with the fee etc. to respondent no.2-university. Resultantly, the result of the petitioners stands declared and communicated to them. This satisfies the main relief claimed in the writ petition. The other grievance of the petitioners is in respect to the imposition of the penalty @ Rs. 20,000/- per candidate by the respondent no.2-university. From the pleadings of the parties, it appears that the petitioners and respondent no.2-university is also to share the blame. Mr. Patwalia, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2-university has referred to Annexure P-6 which is roll number slip. It is stated that this roll number slip was only for the main examinations of Part-III and did not include the supplementary or the deficient papers. CWP. No. 15767 of 2009 -2- From the reading of this document, it appears that it did not indicate anything except the roll numbers and the examination. No details are given. This might have led to an impression with the respondent no.4- college as also the students that under the same roll number they could appear not only for the main examinations but also for all deficient papers. Under the given circumstances, the penalty of Rs. 20,000/- imposed by the university for each student is not justified. However, the lapse on the part of the students and respondent no.4-college also cannot be ignored. Under the totality of the circumstances, the penalty amount of Rs. 20,000/- is reduced to Rs. 10,000/- per student. The amount of Rs. 10,000/- shall be shared by the student and respondent no.4-college equally and deposited with the respondent-university within a period of four weeks. Mr. Bahl, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has brought to the notice of the Court that even though the result of the petitioners has been declared but the separate paper wise position has not been disclosed. Mr. Patwalia has assured the Court that, if, the paperwise position has not been disclosed, the same shall be communicated to the respondent no.4-college within a period of 10 days. With these directions, this petition stands disposed of. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 29.1.2010. lucky