1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Writ Petition No.5151 Of 2009. Yogesh s/o Manikro Rathod ... Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra And Another. ... Respondents. With Writ Petition No.5159 Of 2009. Shashikant S/o Ramrao Patil. ... Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra And Another. ... Respondents. -------- Shri. A.T. Jadhavar, holding for Shri. N.P. Patil (Jamalpurkar), Advocate for the petitioners. Shri. R.V. Ghuge, Advocate for respondent. -------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & K.U. CHANDIWAL, JJ. DATE: 18th NOVEMBER 2009 2 PER COURT : 1) Heard. 2) The petitioners are students of Pre Law First Year Summer 2009 course. The University Inquiry Committee held them responsible for copying and cancelled whole performance of all the subjects of the annual year i.e. Pre law First Year Summer 2009. 3) The learned counsel appearing for the University Shri. Ghuge has placed before us the original Answer sheets of the petitioners. We have perused the same. The answer sheet is attached with a micro Xerox written material which according to the University was used for copying purposes. The flying squad entrusted with this job had visited the examination hall. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioners. The petitioners’ case is that somebody might have thrown this written material behind their seat and for that the petitioners cannot be held responsible. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners raises objection to the procedure adopted by the University in holding the petitioners responsible for carrying copying material, when, in fact, the said 3 written material / micro Xerox notes, according to the counsel, were thrown by somebody near their seats in the examination hall. 4) We do not find any allegation of mala fides against a particular person made by the petitioners in this case. 5) On behalf of the University, affidavit-in-reply is filed by Deputy Registrar of Swami Ramanand Teerth Marathwada University Nanded. In the affidavit-in-reply the deponent submits that the micro Xerox chits were apprehended physically from the petitioners. 6) In the matters of this nature and more particularly in the facts of this case we do not find any strong reasons to reject the contention of the University by accepting the plea of innocence of the petitioners. There was some doubt expressed by the petitioners regarding nature of punishment imposed by the University on them. Learned counsel Shri. Ghuge, on instructions, makes a statement that the performance in all subjects of these students in the Pre Law First Year Summer 2009 examination only is cancelled. The petitioners’ admission in the law college could be continued. The counsel 4 further submits that the petitioners would be entitled to appear in the subsequent examination as per rules and the curriculum. 7) We do not find any case for causing interference in exercise of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is dismissed. (K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl/ wp.5151.09