JUDGMENT T.S. Misra, J. - The petitioner was student of Shia Degree College, Lucknow. He joined LL.B. First Year Class in that college m the session 1977-78. After successfully passing the examination of the First he was admitted to LL.B. Second Year Class and pursued the courts-thereof in the Session 1978-79. The examination for the Second Year LL.B. or the Session 1978-79 took-place in the months of Mar April, 1980. The Petitioner appeared at the said examination and was assigned roll No. 10294. On 1st April, 1980 the petitioner appeared at the examination of Legal theory Comparative Law in room No. 21 of Shia Degree College. In his petition it is alleged that his seat was near the window of the room and just near the a the invigilator. While he had already attempted two questions and was concluding the answer of the third question, he was interrupted by 4 or 5 persons Flying Squad of the Lucknow University who asked the petitioner to stand up and made the search of the body of the petitioner When nothing could be found on his person, one of the persons present their picked up a piece op ed paper lying near the window and then a statement of the petitioner was recorded by the Chief Invigilator. The learned counsel for the University has pieced before us all the relevant papers and documents pertaining to proceeding taken against the petitioner. From those papers so placed before us we find that the statement of he petitioner was recorded on 1st April , spot' and it was to the following effect : "This paper is found near my table. This paper is not deal with any question of the paper." It seems that the Chief Invigilator immediately served a show-cause notice dated 1st April, 1980 on the petitioner for using or attempting to use unfair means at the said examination. In that notice it was said that the petition found acting in a manner detailed in para 2 below while answering paper No. 1 legal Theory LL.B. II year Examination at Shia College, Lucknow The charge was in the following terms : - "Having in possession during the examination hours, material pertaining to syllabus of the question paper of the day, but not used. The petitioner submitted his reply to the said show-cause notice on 2nd April, 1980 copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition. Then the Unfair M Sub-Committee gave its findings which are as under Having gone through the report of the invigilator/checking squad and the reply to the show-cause notice the findings of the committee areas follows The material attached herewith irrelevant to the syllabus but has no been used by the Candidate." The unfair Means Sub-Committee took a decision as under:- "Examination of the paper in question cancelled. This decision of the Unfair Means Sub-Committee was communicated by the registrar of the Lucknow University to the petitioner vide annexure 4. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said decision has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and has prayed that the said show-cause notice annexure 1 and the said order communicated by annexure 4 be quashed. He has also prayed for a writ, order of direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties 1 to 4 to declare his result after getting his answer books examined. He has also prayed for any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this court may deem just and proper in the circumstances of the case. This petition was admitted on 11th December, 1980. This Court then ordered the diversity to file a counter-affidavit within three weeks. The petitioner was allowed a weeks time to file a rejoinder-affidavit thereafter. The opposite-parties were duly served with the notice of the petition inasmuch as the copies of the petition were received by Sri Umesh Chandra representing the opposite-parties 1 to 4. A perusal of the record shows that none of the opposite parties have cared to file any counter-affidavit in this case. Thus the averments made in the petition by the petitioner have remained un-controverted. The petition was, however, opposed by the opposite-parties in the sense that Sri Umesh Chandra Advocate appeared on their behalf today and made oral submissions. We have carefully gone through the petition and the relevant papers annexed it It the writ petition. We have also gone through the papers placed before us by Sri Umesh Chandra. We have also considered the oral submission made by the learned counsel for the opposite-parties as well as the submissions made on be half of the petitioner. We have carefully gone through the petition and the relevant papers annexed it It the writ petition. We have also gone through the papers placed before us by Sri Umesh Chandra. We have also considered the oral submission made by the learned counsel for the opposite-parties as well as the submissions made on be half of the petitioner. As would appear from the narration of facts hereinabove, the petitioner was answering the question of paper 1 of LL.B. Second Year examination of the year 1980 when he was suddenly confronted with certain persons said to constitute a Flying Squad of the Lucknow University. They searched the person of the petitioner and found in being which could be said to be incriminating so far as the examine was concerned. They, however, found one chit of paper lying on the ground near the table of the petitioner and it was then said, as would appear from the show-cause notice, that the paper was in possession of the petitioner and it pertained to the syllabus of the question paper of the day though the paper was not used for the purpose. The immediate reply given by the petitioner was that the paper was found near his table. In other words, it was not actually in his possession. This is also stated by the petitioner in his writ petition in specific words which fact remains un-controverted. Therefore, we have to accept the contention that the incriminating paper in question was found lying near the table of the petitioner and was not actually found in his possession when the Flying Squad discovered the said paper. The petitioner also stated that the piece of paper in question had no concern with any question set in the examination paper in question. Subsequently, on the next day, i.e. on 2nd April, 1980 the petitioner gave a detailed reply and in that too he stated that when the Flying Squad came to his room on 1st April, 1980 the examinees from behind his seat threw chits towards the window so that they may go out of the room. One of chits fell near the table of the petitioner and later on it was picked up by the Flying Squad. One of chits fell near the table of the petitioner and later on it was picked up by the Flying Squad. The petitioner further stated in his explanation dated 2nd April, 1980 that he tried his level best to bring to the knowledge of the Flying Squad true facts but they did not listen to him. He says that as it was lying near his table, the Flying Squad people presumed that it belonged to him. Thus the consistent case of the petitioner had been that the paper in question was not on his table, that it was not found in his possession, and that somebody from behind attempted to throw it out of the window but incidentally it fell within the room near his table and, therefore, the Flying Squad presumed that it belonged to the petitioner though in fact, according to him, it did not belong to him, The Unfair Means Sub-Committee, however, recorded the finding quoted hereinabove to the effect that the material was relevant to the syllabus and had not been used. Incidentally this Unfair Means Sub-Committee also did not record any specific finding as to whether this paper was actually found in the possession of the petitioner. Such a finding was necessary because of the nature of the charge levelled against the petitioner. The learned counsel for the University tried to support the decision of the Unfair Mean Sub-Committee on the ground that the petitioner was given reasonable opportunity of being heard and that the Unfair Means Sub-Committee has found as a fact that the petitioner was guilty of using unfair means. He also placed reliance on Section 29, U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, in this behalf. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the procedure laid down in the Regulations governing the conduct of examinations copy of which is annexure 3 to the writ petition had not been followed, hence the order imposing the penalty was. bad in law. Sri Umesh Chandra submitted that the said Regulations were not applicable to the case of the petitioner. This submission is also disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. Section 29, U.P. State Universities Act, hereinafter called the Act provides that there shall be an Examinations Committee in the University the constitution of which shall be as may be provided for in the Ordinances. This submission is also disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. Section 29, U.P. State Universities Act, hereinafter called the Act provides that there shall be an Examinations Committee in the University the constitution of which shall be as may be provided for in the Ordinances. Subsection (3) of Section 29 says that the Examination Committee may appoint such number of sub-committee as it thinks fit, and in particular, may delegate to any one or more persons or sub-committees the power to deal with and decide cases relating to the use of unfair means by the examines. The submission on behalf of the University was that by reason of the provisions contained in Section 29 of the Act an Examinations Committee has been constituted and the Examinations Committee has also to appoint and has to delegate its powers to the sub-committee to deal with and decide cases relating to the use of unfair means. It was urged that the Unfair means Sub-committee has the requisite power and authority to decide the case of the petitioner relating to the use of the unfair means in examination in question. 4. Section 51 of the Act provides that subject to the provisions of the Act and the Statutes the Ordinances provide for, inter alia, the conduct of examinations. Section 52 of the Act says that the First Ordinances of each existing University shall be the Ordinances as in force in,mediately before the commencement of this Act in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act. Thus by virtue of Section 52 of the Act the Ordinances referred to in annexure 3 to the writ petition are applicable except those Ordinances which are inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. Under the Ordinances in question the Results committee has to deal firstly with the case of use of unfair means in the examination whereas under Section 29 of the Act the Examinations committee constituted under that section has to deal and decide the case relating to the use of unfair means by the examinees. However, Ordinance 1 says that no candidate shall during with him papers, books, notes or other similar material into the examination room. Any candidate bringing papers, books, notes or other similar material into examination room shall be fined Rs. 5. However, Ordinance 1 says that no candidate shall during with him papers, books, notes or other similar material into the examination room. Any candidate bringing papers, books, notes or other similar material into examination room shall be fined Rs. 5. This Ordinance is in our view, not inconsistent with any of the provisions of the Act. Similarly Ordinance 2 provides that a candidate found by the invigilator or the Examiner Conducting a practical or oral examination or the Proctor or the Assistant Proctor on duty with books, notes, papers or similar material related to the question paper of the day on his person or table when he is answering the paper; or a candidate found acting in a manner which n the opinion of the Invigilator or the Examiner conducting a practical or oral examination or the Proctor or the Assistant Proctor on duty is liable to give unfair advantage to him or to another candidate shall for with be challenged by such In dilator, Exam nor, Proctor or Assistant Proctor who shall ask for a signed statement from the candidate on the prescribed form. Such invigilator, Examiner, Proctor or Assistant Proctor shall submit a report to the Superintendent stating full facts of the case along with the statement of the candidate, if any, and papers, books and other material recovered from the candidate, if any. This provision against is not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act; hence this ordinance is too applicable. We are not concerned with Ordinance. The other ordinances are also not relevant for our purposes. Section 29 pointed out earlier, gives power to the Examinations committee to deal with and decide cases relating to the use of unfair means. The power, if delegated, may be exercised by the Sub-Committee as well but the Subcommittee while dealing with and deciding cases relating to the use of unfair means has to adopt certain procedure. The procedure has obviously not been given in Section 29 of the Act or anywhere else in the Act. Some procedure is laid down in ordinance 2 which requires Invigilator, Examiner, Proctor or the Assistant Proctor to ask for a signed statement from the candidate on the prescribed form. This in the instant case was done and the statement of the petitioner was taken soon after he was challenged. Some procedure is laid down in ordinance 2 which requires Invigilator, Examiner, Proctor or the Assistant Proctor to ask for a signed statement from the candidate on the prescribed form. This in the instant case was done and the statement of the petitioner was taken soon after he was challenged. Thereafter a show-cause notice was served on the petitioner requiring him to explain as to why action be not taken against him for having in possession during the examination hours material pertaining to syllabus of the question paper of the day, but not used. This notice was given to hi n. by the Chief Invigilator/Proctor. We do not know whether the Examinations Committee had delegated its powers to the Chief Invigilator or Proctor. Assuming that such a power had been delegated to him to give such a notice. A notice was in fact given to the petitioner on 1st April, 1980 charging him with having in possession during the examination hours, material pertaining to syllabus of the question paper of the day, but not used. So the Specific charge levelled against the petitioner was that he had in possession certain material pertaining to the syllabus in question. The petitioner no doubt filed his reply but as no further procedure is to be found either in Section 29 or in any Ordinance which is not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act, principles of natural justice will have to be applied. It is by now a settled law that rules of natural justice apply when a Statute or statutory rules are silent as to the procedure to be adopted. See Purtabpur Company Limited v. Cane Commr. of Bihar, AIR 1970 SC 1896 . The other principle of natural justice is that a person must known in good time as to what case he has to meet and what charges are levelled against him and on what basis. As pointed out in Ridge v. Baldwin, 1964 AC 40, though there may be no positive words in a Statute requiring that the parties shall be heard, yet justice of the common law will supply the omission of the Legislature and if a person has a right to be heard, he must be entitled to known what he needs to be heard about. Applying these principles of natural justice to the case in hand, we find that the petitioner was told that he had in his possession certain material pertaining to syllabus of the question. The petitioner flatly refused that the document in question was found in his possession. The Unfair Means Sub-Committee did not find that the petitioner was actually in possession of the document in question. The charge levelled was not at all established. There was no proof either of it. No material has been placed before us to show that any body stated before the Sub-Committee that the petitioner was found in possession of the incriminating document. The only finding is that the material in question was relevant to the syllabus but had not been used by the candidate. That being the position, we are of the opinion that the impugned order of punishment is violable of the principles of natural justice. It is also not supportable by any evidence or any provision of law, neither by the proves on of Section 29 of the Act nor the Ordinances in question. It therefore, drivers to be quashed. 5. In the result, the petition is allowed. The show-cause notice contained in annexure 1 to the writ petition and the under communicated by UFM-79/ B-320/ED copy of which is annexure 4 to the writ petition are quashed. The opposite-parties 1 to 4 are commanded to declare the petitioners result after getting his answer books examined within 15 days. As it was pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the examination of LL.B. Third year is scheduled to take place on 14th July, 1981 and onwards, the petitioner shall therefore, be provisionally admitted to the said examination of LL.B. Third Year and shall be permitted to appear at the said examination. As the result of LL.B. Third Year Examination will depend on the result of his examination for LL.B. Second Year, hence the result of the petitioners examination for LL.B, Third Year will be declared only when the petitioner is declared successful in the examination of LL.B. Second Year. The result of LL.B. Second Year shall,, therefore, be declared by the University within three, weeks. No order as to cost.