JUDGMENT : L. Rath, J. - The results of the B.A. (Hons) Examination of the year, 1982 in which the Petitioner claims to have been successful having been cancelled by order passed vide Annexures-5 on 30-9-1982, the Petitioner he approached this Court for redress. 2. The case of the Petitioner is that after results were published on 10-7-1982 declaring him passed, the mark sheet was issued to him by the Principal, B.J.B. College, Bhubaneswar on 10-7-1982 and the provisional certificate was also issued to him on 7-8-1982 by the Utkal University, He got admitted as a student of M.A. (Psychology) in the Utkal University the classes of which started on 19-8-1982. The impugned order in Annexure-7 was passed on 30-9-1982 and the writ application was filed on the next day i.e. on 1-10-1982. This Court while issuing notice to the opposite parties for both admission and hearing, granted interim stay of the operation of the order and thereafter by order dated 17-7-1984 and 3-5-1985 the Petitioner was permitted to appear at the M.A. Examination. 3. In the counter affidavit filed, the stand of the opposite parties is that results of the, Annual B.A. (Hans) Examination were published on 6-7-1982 but the name of the Petitioner did not find place either in the list of candidates declared successful or in the list of candidates whose results, were withheld and hence it was apparent that the Petitioner had failed in the examination. Subsequently, when results of the withheld candidates were published, the name of the Petitioner was found to be included in the list of successful candidates and on such basis College Leaving Certificate as also mark-sheet and the provisional certificate were issued in his favour. The University had appointed a team of senior Tabulators to check up the tabulation marks of all candidates who had appeared at the Annual B.A., B.Sc., B.Com, BOL (both Pass and Honours) and it was found by such Inspectors that the marks of the Petitioner as posted in the concerned Tabulation Register stood manipulated. The Chancellor of the University had also, in exercise of the powers u/s 5(5) of the Utkal University Act, 1966, directed the Inspector General of Vigilance to inspect the results of the very same examinees but results of the inspection has not yet been made known. The Chancellor of the University had also, in exercise of the powers u/s 5(5) of the Utkal University Act, 1966, directed the Inspector General of Vigilance to inspect the results of the very same examinees but results of the inspection has not yet been made known. Because of the manipulation and fraud in the Tabulation Register, the result of the Petitioner was vitiated and hence was cancelled. 4. Mr. N.C. Panigrahi, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has tenaciously urged two submissions assailing the decision of the University, viz; (1) That the Petitioner having acted upon the representation of the University of his having passed the examination and having acted to his detriment, the University should be held to be estopped from cancelling his results and (ii) the equities of the situation demand that the result of the Petitioner should not be cancelled. In support of such submission, he has also Bled an affidavit to state that on the basis of the declaration of results the Petitioner was appointed to a special gazetted post in the State Government as Sub-Divisional Information and Public Relation Officer at Bolangir and he is now posted as Executive Officer of Konark N.A.C. 5. So far as the plea of estoppel is concerned we are not impressed with it. The essence of the principles of estoppel is that if a party to the lis having been misled by the representation, of the other party has taken a position to his disadvantages, it is not open to the party making the representation to turn around and plead to the contrary two important exceptions to such premises of law are that there is no estoppel if the truth, i.e. incorrectness of representation is known to the party who is supposed to act on the representation, or that the representation is against the provision of any law. A corollary of the first is that is the representation is based upon fraud practised upon the party making it either by the party who claims the benefit of the representation or by someone else to his knowledge the victim of the fraud is not estopped to resile from the representation. A corollary of the first is that is the representation is based upon fraud practised upon the party making it either by the party who claims the benefit of the representation or by someone else to his knowledge the victim of the fraud is not estopped to resile from the representation. Besides, if a person seeks to derive benefit on the principles of estoppel of a declaration which is the outcome of fraud a question that may arise for consideration is, though we are not expressing any opinion on the same, whether an inference is liable to be drawn that the person concerned is a party to the fraud or had know ledge of it. The regulations of the University which are fraud under the Act and the Statutes are doubtless statutory in character and they enjoin that a student is entitled to be declared passed if he has secured the requisite marks in the examination. Unless requisite marks have been obtained, an examinee is not' entitled to Be declared passed. Any declaration of result of, a examinee who has not actually passed was passed, is an illegality against which no plea of estoppel can be pressed. Even apart from the question of illegality, the plea of estoppel is not otherwise available to the Petitioner since he had knowledge of the fact that he had filed in the examination, his name having not been published either was passed candidate or as a candidate w hose results had been withheld. The only necessary conclusion was that the candidate had filed and it thus constituted a notice to the Petitioner of the fact. The intrusion of the Petitioner's name subsequently in the list of successful candidates who se results had been withheld was a mistake of the University and was corrected barely two months after and thus the Petitioner was put to know ledge of the correct state of affairs that he was a failed candidate. The only change of position which the Petitioner made was to take admission in the M.A. classes on 7-8-1982. As such since the truth of the fact was known to the Petitioner and the University merely corrected a mistake committed by it, it cannot be said that any question of estoppel arose so as to prevent the University from correcting the mistake. As such since the truth of the fact was known to the Petitioner and the University merely corrected a mistake committed by it, it cannot be said that any question of estoppel arose so as to prevent the University from correcting the mistake. Whether or not the principle of estoppel would succeeds, depends on the facts and Circumstances of each case. The same view was also reiterated in the very decision cited by Mr. Panigrahi reported in Basanta Kumar Mohanty Vs. Utkal University and Others. It was observed that the question whether principles of estoppel would apply to a particular case depends on the facts and circumstances of that case. One of the tests is that whether the person who had received certain advantages on account of the so-called misrepresentation of the other really know the correct state of affairs and yet continued to receive the advantages in question or not. 6. Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned Counsel appearing for the opposite parties has also placed reliance on Suresh Chandra Choudhury Vs. The Berhampur University and Others, and Biseswar Behera v. Utkal University and Ors. O.J.C. No. 115/83-D/22-12-1987. In the first decision the Court came to the conclusion that where the student secured less than the minimum marks required for passing the examination but had been declared to be passed, it was an error on the part of the University known to the candidate of which no advantage could be claimed and negatived the principle of estoppel. In the other case similarly, where the candidate had been declared successful in the B.Com examination by mistake which was known to him and had been admitted into the B.Com course, but subsequently after five months, the University declared him failed, the Court declined to give benefits of estoppel being of the view that such declaration would result, in diluting the standard of University education and the damage caused would be far-reaching compared to the hardships of the Petitioner. 7. In view of such position of the law, the plea of estoppel cannot succeed. 8. So far as other submission raised by Mr. Panigrahi on equity is concerned, it equally has no merit. 7. In view of such position of the law, the plea of estoppel cannot succeed. 8. So far as other submission raised by Mr. Panigrahi on equity is concerned, it equally has no merit. If the Petitioner had not in reality passed, but was so declared by a fraud practised upon the University by manipulation of marks in the Tabulation Register and he is the beneficiary of such fraud, there certainly cannot be any equity in his favour to continue the fraud. It is the Petitioner's case that since the results were declared in the year 1982 and long time has elapsed thereafter and he has achieved some stations in life, an unsettling of the same by cancellation of his results would cause gross jeopardy to him. After giving our anxious consideration to such contention we are not able to persuade ourselves to accept such submission. A fraud if has been practised as alleged by the University is of far-reaching consequence and the perpetration of the benefit arising out of such fraud would cause a' dangerous precedent having as unsalutary effect on the society and would be wholly opposed to the principles of equity. In Biseswar Behera v. Utkal University and Ors. (supra), the Court was faced with an identical situation where the results of the Petitioner in the B.Com. Examination in the year 1982 of the same University was cancelled on 7-1-1983. The candidates had taken admission in B.Com. class in the same College in August, 1982. Negativing the plea of equity and hardship, the Court held that since the Petitioner could not have been declared' to have passed under the regulations of the University, directing his such results to continue would result in diluting the standard of University education and that the system cannot be damaged in order to protect the future of an individual student. As we find, much time was not lost by the University in cancelling the results of examination, it having been done barely two months after declaration of the results. Taking into account the usual process which must be gone through before the decision to cancel the results is reached and acted upon. It cannot be said that the University has not acted with promptitude. The opposite parties are not to suffer merely because of pendency of the case in the Court. Taking into account the usual process which must be gone through before the decision to cancel the results is reached and acted upon. It cannot be said that the University has not acted with promptitude. The opposite parties are not to suffer merely because of pendency of the case in the Court. If a question of equity would arise in favour of the Petitioner because of lapse of time, similarly, a 'question of equity would also arise in favour of the opposite parties that they should not suffer merely because of the pendency of the case before this Court for a longer period. As is known no party should suffer prejudice on account of the Court. In that view of the matter this submission must also fail. 9. There is however, another aspect of the question for which relief is available to the Petitioner. On perusal of the record it is notked that result of the Petitioner was cancelled without any proceeding having been taken out for the same and without is having been information of any fraud being practised to manipulate the Tabulation Register. The facts of this case are identically similar to the facts of Subhransu Routray v. Utkal University and Ors. O.J.C. No. 1855/82-D/10-5-1989. As such we would issue a direction in the same way as was issued in that case and direct the University to afford opportunity to the Petitioner and issue show-cause notice to him regarding cancellation of results and take necessary decision after compliance with the principles of natural justice preferably within a period of two months from today. 10. In the result writ petition is allowed and the impugned notification of the University dated 22-9-1982 in Annexure-5, is quashed subject to the aforesaid observations. Hearing fee is assessed at Rs. 200/-. A. Pasayat, J. I agree. Petition allowed. Final Result : Allowed