IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 19330 of 2007 Between: P. Venkata Narayana, S/o. Venkataiah Chowdhary, R/o. D.No. 58- 1-416, NAD Post, Santhi nagar, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Register, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam District. 2 The Controller of Examinations, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam District. 3 The Additional Controller of Examinations, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam District. ... RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned action of the respondents in issuing Memorandum No. SI(4)27535/SMC/2006 dated 17-5-2007 without considering the explanation dated 11-1-2007 submitted by the Petitioner as highly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India and also violative of principles of natural justice and pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.EATHAKOTA VENKATA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: MR.M.V.RAJA RAAM The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 19330 of 2007 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the order passed by the second respondent, dated 17.05.2007 debarring the petitioner up to 2008 Main Examinations of the VI Semester LL.B., Degree Examination is arbitrary and illegal. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record. The impugned order came to be passed on an allegation that the petitioner had attached additional sheets to the main answer book brought from out side. Admittedly, a show-cause notice was issued calling upon the petitioner to explain the alleged misconduct committed by him in the examination hall and after considering the petitioner’s explanation, the impugned order was passed. Pursuant to the directions of this Court, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent–University placed before this Court the answer script of the petitioner. A perusal of the answer script of the petitioner shows that the additional sheets, which were alleged to be brought from out side were apparently different from the additional sheets supplied by the respondents. Hence, the allegation that the additional sheets were brought by the petitioner from out side cannot be held to be without any basis. It is also relevant to note that under the impugned order, while debarring the petitioner up to 2008 main examinations, he was permitted to appear in the year 2009 main/next appearance or thereafter. Thus it is clear that the penalty imposed under the impugned order has already worked itself out and consequently, now it is open to the petitioner to appear for the examinations. Hence, interference by this Court, at this stage, is not warranted on any ground whatsoever. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of allowing the petitioner to appear for the Examination in the year 2009 Main/next appearance or thereafter as stated in the impugned order, dated 17.05.2007. No costs. ____________ G.ROHINI, J 1st June 2009 kh