IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16448 of 2010 CHANDRA BHUSHAN PRAKASH PASWAN . Versus THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY & ORS . ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Y.V.Giri, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Raju Giri, Advocate For the Respondents: None --- 2. 09.11.2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. No one appears on behalf of the respondents despite service of a copy of the writ application upon them and name of the Counsel appearing in the cause list. The petitioner is stated to be a student of the National Institute of Technology, Patna in the B. Tech. Mechanical Engineering Course in the four year session duration commencing from July 2008. Each session consists of two semester examinations to be held in December and May/June. In the last semester examination for the first Session 2008- 2009 he was issued a show cause notice on 13.7.2009 for having used unfair means. After consideration of the cause shown his examination was cancelled on 28.7.2009 on grounds mentioned in the order. The petitioner approached this Court in CWJC No. 12282 of 2009 questioning the College permitting him to join afresh from the Session 2010-2011 on the ground that under the regulations he was required to take fresh admission in 2009-2010 Session and could pursue his lst year course afresh. A counter affidavit was filed by the respondents. The Court after consideration of issues noticed the stand of the NIT as follows:- “Counsel for the N.I.T. submits that the regulations are very clear and on account of 2 certain ambiguity certain persons were erroneously allowed to appear. A fresh corrigendum has been issued on 24.4.2009. The submission on behalf of the N.I.T. is that a candidate who is found to have been using unfairmeans in the semester is debarred for the next academic session as a measure of punishment. After the punishment is allowed to run its course, the candidate is permitted to take admission in the next academic session. Applying that interpretation, what transpires is that for the unfairmeans indulged in May/June semester examination in 2009, the petitioner as a measure of punishment is debarred from appearing in May/June examination of the Sessions 2009-2010. After the punishment has completed its course, the petitioner is allowed to join the next academic session after the duration of punishment in 2010-2011.” It was held that the Court did not find any unreasonableness or arbitrariness in the decision warranting interference. The petitioner in terms of the stand taken by the NIT itself was eligible to take admission in the Session 2010- 2011. The petitioner therefore represented afresh for permission to take admission in the Session 2010-2011 on 3.8.2010. That has been rejected by an order dated 12.8.2010. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that once the respondents took a particular stand before this Court and the petitioner seeks relief after dismissal of his writ application in the manner and to the extent that the respondents represented before this Court, he cannot be denied admission in the course commencing from the Session 2010-2011. No reason has been assigned in the impugned order dated 12.8.2010. On perusal of the order in CWJC No. 12282 of 2009 it appears that the respondents in no uncertain terms took the 3 stand that the petitioner was debarred from pursuing the course in the Session 2009-2010 and that after punishment ran its course he was allowed to join in the next academic session 2010-2011. Once they took a particular stand before the Court if they chose to deny the petitioner the benefit, they were required to spell out reasons. The reason may or may not have had its justification which would have been then assessed by the Court on its own merit. An administrative order which has civil consequences is required to be reasoned. The giving of reasons are a facet of the principles of natural justice displaying application of mind to the issue and arriving at a decision after consideration of all aspects. It controls arbitrariness and leaves the citizen satisfied that his case has been duly and properly considered but that he was unfortunate that the law debarred him. Reasons have been held to be heart and soul of an order. An order sans reason, more so when the edifice for the relief claimed is based on a court’s order becomes arbitrary and perverse. The order dated 12.8.2010 therefore is not sustainable. It is accordingly set aside. The petitioner is held entitled to be admitted to the aforesaid course in the Session 2010-2011. The right to appear at the examination, attendance etc. are matters for which the petitioner if so advised may move before the respondents appropriately under the Regulations. The writ application stands allowed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.) 4