JUDGMENT K.P. Singh, J. - By means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing Annexures 3 and 4 attached with the writ petition. 2. The Petitioner having Roll No. 64471 in the Intermediate Final Examination had passed the aforesaid examination and was placed in Second Division as is evident from Annexure-2 attached with this writ petition. Thereafter, the petitioner received a communication from the Principal, S. D. Inter College, Muzaffar-Nagar to the effect that his result of Intermediate Examination 1983 regarding Roll No. 64471 had been cancelled and, therefore, he was required to return his mark-sheet, transfer-certificate and character-certificate issued by the Institution. Thereafter, the petitioner also received a communication contained in Annexure-4 attached with the writ petition to the effect that as his result of Intermediate Examination 1983 had been cancelled hence his entry into B. Com 1st year was also cancelled. 3. In Para 11 of the writ petition it has been alleged that there was no similarity in the answer books of the petitioner and those of the Students having Roll Nos. 64491 and 64494. In Para 13 of the writ petition also it has been indicated that according to the examiner the petitioner had copied from the Copies of the Students having Roll Nos. 64491 and 64494 and all the Students have translated the Hindi Version "Ki Ham Relon Par Kitna Adhik Nirbhal Hain" As We Are Depend. It has been alleged that it is only an imagination of the Examiner to complain that the petitioner had copied from the Copies of students having Roll Nos. 64491 and 64494. In the aforesaid paragraph it has been indicated that the two students having Roll Nos. 64491 and 64494 were in Room No. 23 whereas the petitioner was sitting in Room No. 7 of the Jain Inter College, Muzaffarnagar. It has been suggested that there is no evidence worth the name to establish that the petitioner had copied from the answer books of the other two students having Roll Nos. 64491 and 64494. 4. No counter affidavit has been /filed in this case. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the contesting opposite parties and we have also gone through the contents of the writ petition. 64491 and 64494. 4. No counter affidavit has been /filed in this case. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the contesting opposite parties and we have also gone through the contents of the writ petition. In the circumstances of the present case we have no alternative except to accept the truth of the contentions raised in Paragraphs 11 and 13 of the writ petition. In our opinion, there is no copying on the part of the petitioner as mentioned in Paragraph 11 of the writ petition. The word Compulsory has wrongly been shelled by the petitioner in the objected portion of the translation whereas the two students having Roll Nos. 64491 and 64494 had written the word complement. Therefore, no reasonable inference can be drawn that the petitioner had copies from the answer books of the other two students having Rool Nos. 64491 and 64494. 6. The other objected portion is that all the students have translated "we are depend" for "Ki Han Relon Par Kitna Adhik Nirbhar Hain". This portion of the translation can be erroneously done by the students in normal course. Moreover, when the two students were sitting in Room No. 23 and the petitioner was sitting in Room No. 7, it cannot conclusively be inferred that the petitioner copies the objected part on of the translation in the circumstances of the present case as alleged. To our mind, there is no evidence to establish that the petitioner had copies while translating the passage of Hindu and giving answer to question No. 5 (a). 7. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed and the impugned Annexures-3 and 4 are hereby quashed. There will be no order as to costs. 8. A copy of the judgment may be given to the learned counsel for the petitioner on the receipt of usual charged within a week from today.