JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner appeared in P. M. T. Examination, 1988 conducted by Sukhadiya University, Udaipur. The examination was held on July 15, 1988. The petitioner was appearing in Zoology paper. The petitioner was occupying last seat in the second row, the another candidate Ghanshyam Mahavar was occupying last seat in third row, and as such was not sitting behind the petitioner but was sitting by his side. At about 9.20 A.M. it was noticed by the Superintendent of Examination that the petitioner was helping Ghanshyam Mahavar in answering the questions. The petitioner was caught. The petitioner made statement to the Superintendent of Examination that he was not helping Ghanshyam Mahavar and he does not know if anybody was copying from his back. Ghanshyam Mahavar made a statement to the Superintendent of Examination that he has copied two or three questions from the answer book of the candidate bearing Roll No. 12212 i.e. the petitioner. 2. It appears that under clause 14 of the guidelines candidates resorting to the use of unfair means shall be turned out of the examination hall/room and the examination shall be treated as cancelled as a whole. It further appears from the reading of clause 12 of the guidelines that a candidate found acting in a manner, which in the opinion of the invigilator, is liable to give unfair advantage to another candidate, shall be forthwith suspended from the examination of the day by the Centre Superintendent. 3. It will be clear from the narration of the above facts that so far as the petitioner is concerned he did not admit in his statement to the Superintendent of Examination that he was helping Ghanshyam Mahavar in any manner whatsoever or that Ghanshyam Mahavar was copying the answers from his answer-book. Under these circumstances Mr. Bhandari, learned counsel for the respondent is right and fair when he says that show cause notice should have been given to the petitioner by issuing a notice to him mentioning all the facts, the notice should have been action oriented and thereafter after considering the reply, if any, of the petitioner an action should have been taken. 4. We may state that in the merit list prepared for PMT Examination, 1988 the name of the petitioner did not appear. There is nothing on record nor Mr. Bhandari says that the examination of the petitioner was cancelled. 4. We may state that in the merit list prepared for PMT Examination, 1988 the name of the petitioner did not appear. There is nothing on record nor Mr. Bhandari says that the examination of the petitioner was cancelled. It is necessary that a notice to show cause must have been given to the petitioner and the petitioner must be supplied not only with a copy of his statement but also of the statement, if any, made by Shri Ghanshyam Mahavar to the Superintendent of Examination. It is not disputed that so far as the answer book of Zoology subject is concerned, it was not examined perhaps on the ground that the petitioner was found helping the other candidate. Therefore, in the light of the above observations a notice to show cause will be given to the petitioner and not (sic) only thereafter a decision will be taken as to whether the examination in the subject or as a whole should be cancelled or not. 5. Consequently, we partly allow this writ petition and direct the non-petitioner that if he intends to take any action against the petitioner, notice should be given to the petitioner and after reply, it should be decided whether the examination of Zoology subject or the entire examination be cancelled or not. 6. The above exercise, if any, must be completed as soon as possible but in no case later than four weeks.Petition partly allowed. *******