THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 22423 of 2007 O r d e r: The petitioner, while studying B.E. (ECE) II year, vide notice dated 02.05.2007, issued by respondent No.3, namely, the Principal, Deccan College of Engineering & Technology, was expelled from the college with immediate effect, and it is this notice, which he has questioned in this writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that ragging is rampant in respondent No.3-college, that the petitioner and several other students were subjected to ragging by their seniors, and particularly by one Mukarram Ali Siddiqui and his associates, and that though he and several students made complaints to respondent No.3, no steps to arrest the ragging was taken. Therefore, the petitioner lodged police complaints, resulting in registration of crimes against the persons indulging in ragging. As crimes were registered, Mukarram Ali Siddiqui and his associates bore grudge and tried to attack him, which resulted in the unfortunate incident taking place on 21.04.2007. In connection with the said incident, a criminal case has been registered against the petitioner. However, respondent No.3 without conducting any semblance of enquiry and without issuing any notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, has issued the impugned notice, which in effect, is not a show cause notice, but a final order, expelling the petitioner from the college for ever. He submitted that the impugned notice, has been issued by respondent No.3 on the directions of the Chairman of Dar-us-Salam Educational Trust, which runs and manages respondent No.3-College, and there is no application of mind of respondent No.3 to the facts of the case. Since the impugned notice, which is in the nature of a final order, has been issued by respondent No.3 without conducting any enquiry and notice and in violation of the principles of natural justice, he submitted that the same is liable to be set aside. In support of his various arguments, he placed reliance on the judgments in Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. v. Kumari Chitra Srivastava[1], Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India[2], Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust v. V.R. Rudani[3], Rakesh Kumar v. State of Punjab[4], Devinderpal Singh Sandhu v. K.L. Kapur[5] and Jiby P. Chacko v. Principal Mediciti School of Nursing, Ghanpur, Ranga Reddy District[6]. The learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2, namely Osmania University submitted that they have nothing to do with the internal administration of respondent No.3. The learned counsel for respondent No.3-college fairly admitted that no enquiry whatsoever was conducted and no notice whatsoever was issued to the petitioner before respondent No.3 issued the impugned notice expelling the petitioner from the college. He, however, submitted that the petitioner was expelled from the college because he was alleged to have carried a weapon fully loaded with bullets illegally and opened fire at the students, and in connection with which a criminal case was also registered, and hence he submitted that no interference is called for therewith. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2-Osmania University and the learned counsel for respondent No.3-College, and perused the material placed before the Court. The petitioner does not dispute the incident that has taken place in the college premises on 21.04.2007, and in relation to which, a case was also registered against him. However, the question as to whether the petitioner has committed the offences, as alleged in crime registered against him, is a matter for investigation by the police, who shall investigate the crime and file charge sheet. Admittedly, as of now the police are said to have not filed any charge sheet. The culpability of the petitioner in the said crime, would be decided by the trial Court after full-fledged trial. Taking into consideration the fact that the incident occurred in the college premises, respondent No. 3 issued the impugned order, expelling the petitioner from the college. Though the impugned order, which expelled the petitioner from the college, is styled as notice, the same, in fact, is in the nature of a final order, for the said notice, directly expelled the petitioner from the college. The impugned notice does not specify the period for which the petitioner stands expelled from the college. The fact that there is no application of mind by respondent No.3 to the facts of the case, is evident from the very impugned notice itself, inasmuch as it states that it has been issued in pursuance of the orders of the Chairman, Dar-us- Salam Educational Trust, who in fact, runs and manages respondent No.3-college. Admittedly, before expelling the petitioner from the college, no enquiry whatsoever was conducted into the alleged incident, to ascertain the involvement of the petitioner, and merely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in criminal acts, and in relation to which, he was arrested by the police, he has been expelled from the college. The impugned order, admittedly, has stymied the right of the petitioner to pursue his further course, much less, to prosecute further, and in fact, the petitioner could not prosecute his studies for more than three years by reason of the operation of the impugned order. This Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not normally interfere in matters where the colleges have impose punishments for disciplining the students, who indulge in breaking the rules and behave in a manner not conducive to the college atmosphere or indulged in criminal or unlawful activities, resulting in registration of crimes. The law is well settled that when an order affecting a person’s right is to be passed, principles of natural justice demand, conducting of enquiry and issuance of notice. In the instant case, admittedly, respondent No. 3 has passed the impugned order, which affected the right of the petitioner to prosecute further or continue his studies in the college and pursue his course for ever, without conducting any enquiry and issuing any notice. Since respondent No.3 has passed the impugned order, expelling the petitioner from the college, without conducting any enquiry and without issuing any notice, and and merely, based on the orders of the Chairman of Dar-us-Salam Educational Trust, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained, and is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. Respondent No.3 is at liberty to conduct enquiry, issue notice to the petitioner calling for his explanation, and after considering the explanation, if any, which he may submit, pass appropriate speaking order. No costs. _________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 17th March, 2009 KSR [1] (1970) 1 SCC 121 [2] (1988) SCC (Lab) 1 [3] (1989) 2 SCC 691 [4] AIR 1965 (P & H) 507 [5] AIR 1966 (P & H) 91 [6] 2002 ALD (2) 827