JUDGMENT S.D. Agarwal, J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. Briefly, the facts giving rise to the petition are as follows : The petitioner was student of law II year in Ambika Pratap Narain Degree College, Basti. This College is affiliated to the University of Gorakhpur. The University held LL.B. Semester Examination on 16th of August, 1978 in the Company Law paper. The petitioner appeared in the said examination. The University declared the result of the said examination in December, 1978 but the petitioners result had been withheld by the University on the ground that he had used unfair means. 3. Thereafter on 11th of August, 1979, a notice was issued to the petitioner asking him to show cause as to why the result of his examination should, not be cancelled and he be debarred from appearing in the future examination of the University. He was further asked by the said notice to give his explanation by the 18th of August, 1979. On 26th of September, 1979 the petitioner appeared in person before the committee constituted to consider the cases of unfair means as required by Section 29 of the U.P. State Universities Act. On the same day a decision was taken by the Committee that the result of his examination of 1978 be cancelled and he be further debarred from appearing in 1979 examination. This order was communicated to the petitioner by a letter dated 5th of October, 1979. 4. The petitioner has accordingly challenged the order of the Examination Committee communicated to him by the letter dated 3th of October, 1979. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. R. Bharati, learned counsel for the University. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in the show-cause notice it has not been stated that the charge against him was that he had copied from certain book Company Law by Avatar Singh and since the action has been taken against the petitioner in view of the report of the Examiner that he has copied question no. 5 and 4 from the book mentioned above, the petitioner did not have an adequate opportunity of explaining the charge against him and as such the order cancelling his examination and debarring him from appearing in future examination illegal and void in law. 7. 5 and 4 from the book mentioned above, the petitioner did not have an adequate opportunity of explaining the charge against him and as such the order cancelling his examination and debarring him from appearing in future examination illegal and void in law. 7. In the counter-affidavit of Achhul Prasad Singh which has been filed on behalf of the University, it has been stated that the Examiner had submitted a report that the petitioner had copied question nos. 5 and 4 of the Company Law paper from the book Company Law by Avatar Singh. It has been further estate that, in view of this report of the Examiner, action was taken against the petitioner. 8. Annexure 2 is the show-cause notice given to the petitioner. We have examined the said show-cause notice. We do not find any such charge stated on the basis of which action was taken against the petitioner. 9. Since in the show-cause notice no charge on the basis of which action was taken has been given and the petitioner was not given a proper opportunity to explain the said charge, in our opinion the action taken on the basis of the said charge is in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. In the result, the petitioner is liable to succeed. 10. The petition is allowed. The order of the Examination Committee dated 26th of September, 1979 so faras the petitioner is concerned, as quashed. A writ of mandamus is issued to the University directing it to declare the result of the petitioner. In circumstances of the case, the parties will bear their own costs.