1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.9638/2010 Dr.Amit S/o Vishwanath Kothare .. PETITIONER VERSUS State of Maharashtra & Ors .. RESPONDENTS ....... Shri V.D.Sapkal,Advocate for petitioner Shri K.M.Suryawanshi,A.G.P. for respondents 1 & 3. Shri K.D.Bade Patil,Adv.for respondent no.2 Shri V.D.Salunke,Adv.for respondent no.4 Shri Rajendra Deshmukh,Adv.for respondent no.5. ......... CORAM : B.R.GAVAI & A.A.SAYED,JJ. DATE : 26/10/2010 ......... PER COURT : Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, Petition is heard finally. 2] At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks 2 liberty to withdraw all the allegations made by the petitioner against respondents 5 and 6. Liberty is granted. The necessary amendment be carried out during the course of the day. 3] Petitioner had appeared for M.B.B.S. III year Part-I examination in May 2010. The examination of the last subject for which the petitioner appeared was held on 29/5/2010. It appears that the petitioner was found to have indulged into unfair practice in the said examination and the respondents no. 5 and 6 reported the matter to the respondent no.2 University. Respondent no.2 University issued a charge sheet against the petitioner on 10th July 2010. The said charges were replied by the petitioner. The respondent no.2 imposed a punishment thereby annulling the performance of the petitioner in all the subjects of the examination held in May-June 2010 and excluded him from appearing for the examination to be held in November-December 2010. 4] Shri Sapkal, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the ground of non observance of principles of natural justice. He submits that the material which was used against the petitioner was not supplied to him and on this sole ground, impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. 5] Shri Bade Patil, learned counsel for respondent no.2 on the contrary submits that the impugned order is passed after 3 taking into consideration the entire material on record including the statements of witnesses. He therefore, submits that no interference is warranted in the impugned order. 6] In so far as merits of the matter are concerned , we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. However, we find that this was the first instance, wherein the petitioner has been found to be involved in an unfair practice. There is no past record of the petitioner, which can be said to be adverse against him. We therefore, find that by modifying the impugned order, it would serve the interest of justice. 7] We therefore, modify the impugned order holding the punishment of annulment of performance in all subjects in the examination held in May-June 2010, to be a sufficient penalty and quashing and setting aside the penalty of exclusion from appearing for the examination to be held in November- December 2010. [A.A.SAYED] [B.R.GAVAI] JUDGE JUDGE umg/wp9638-10