JUDGMENT Mehrotra, J. - This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that a writ of certiorari be issued against opposite parties the Registrar, Roorkee University, Roorkee and the Principal Hewett Engineering School, Lucknow quashing their orders cancelling the examination of the petitioner for the year 1956. 2. The facts which are set out in the affidavit briefly are that the petitioner was admitted in the Overseer class of the Hewett Engineering School, Lucknow which is affiliated to the Roorkee University, in November 1954. In June 1955 the petitioner appeared at the First Year Overseer Class Examination conducted by the University. But on account of his illness and late admission the petitioner could not pass the examination and was allowed to appear as a private candidate at the First Year Overseer examination which was held some times in 1956. When the petitioner was answering his paper in Building Construction I in group no. 1, the invigilator found a diary in the front pocket of the petitioner's shirt and thereupon he reported the matter to the Superintendent of the examination. The statement of the petitioner was also recorded by him in which he said that he had brought a diary and that he had not used it for copying. Thereafter the petitioner was allowed to appear in the other papers and he had expected that he would get through but in the result his name did not appear and on an enquiry he came to know that his examination for the year 1956 was cancelled. The invigilator's report, the statement of the petitioner and the diary which was recovered from the pocket of the petitioner was handed over by the invigilator to the superintendent of the examination. The superintendent of the examination sent his report along with the invigilator's report and the diary which was recovered from the possession of the petitioner and his statement to the Registrar of the Roorkee University. On the report being sent to the Registrar, Roorkee University, Roorkee, the Registrar passed an order cancelling the examination of the petitioner. The main contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the principle of natural justice was violated in his case inasmuch as the petitioner was given no opportunity to explain his conduct by the Registrar before passing the order cancelling his examination result. 3. Notices were issued to the opposite parties. The main contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the principle of natural justice was violated in his case inasmuch as the petitioner was given no opportunity to explain his conduct by the Registrar before passing the order cancelling his examination result. 3. Notices were issued to the opposite parties. The counter affidavit has been filed in this case. In paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit it is stated as follows: "That after considering fully the report of the invigilator and the Superintendent and the explanation of the candidate, the deponent came to the finding that the applicant candidate was guilty of using unfair means at the examination, and hence he was given the punishment that his examination of 1956 was cancelled which was duly communicated to him through the principal Hewett Engineering School." 4. The deponent of this affidavit is Sri N. C. Pal who is the Registrar of the Roorkee University. According to the opposite party no. 1 the statement of the petitioner recorded by the invigilator, the invigilator's report, the superintendent of examination's report and the diary which was recovered from the possession of the petitioner were considered by the Registrar and on consideration of this material the Registrar passed the order which has been impugned by the petitioner. It is admitted that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to explain his conduct before the order was passed. Thus admittedly there was a violation of the principle of natural justice. In the case of Ghanshyam Das Gupta v. Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P., Allahabad, A.I.R. 1956 Allahabad 539, has been held by the Full Bench of this Court that if a student's examination is cancelled without giving him an opportunity to explain his conduct such an order is in a violation of the principle of natural justice, and should be quashed. This decision to my mind fully applies to the facts of the present case. Reliance was placed on behalf of the opposite parties on paragraph 15 of the instructions issued to the superintendent of the examination which, have been filed as annexure `E' to the counter affidavit. Paragraph 15 of the instructions reads as follows:- 15. This decision to my mind fully applies to the facts of the present case. Reliance was placed on behalf of the opposite parties on paragraph 15 of the instructions issued to the superintendent of the examination which, have been filed as annexure `E' to the counter affidavit. Paragraph 15 of the instructions reads as follows:- 15. A candidate who is found in possession of books or papers, or found talking, exchanging of his answers book, copying or using unfair means of any kind is liable to removal from the Examination Hall. Such books and papers should be taken from the candidate and sent with his answer book and a full report on the case to the Registrar by Registered Post." 5. That to my mind gives no power to the Registrar to cancel the examination. The power of the Registrar is be found on the printed instructions on the cover of the answer books which provides as follows:- "Any candidate found using unfair means will have his examination cancelled and will be further disqualified for taking University examinations in future." 6. There is no doubt that the Registrar had such a power but still principle of natural justice requires that a student should be given an opportunity to explain his conduct. All the opportunity which was given in this case to the petitioner was that his statement was recorded by the invigilator. All the instructions given in paragraph 15 as already referred to, were of course complied with by the Superintendent of the examination but it cannot be said that the petitioner in this case was given an opportunity to explain his conduct. 7. There was, therefore, admittedly a violation of the principle of natural justice in this case. I, therefore allow this petition and quash the order of the Registrar cancelling the examination of the petitioner. In the circumstances of the case I make no orders as to costs.