JUDGMENT S.K. Dhaon, J. - The petitioners, who are fifteen in number, approached this court by means of the this writ petition on 10th April, 1985, with the prayer that the order dated 22nd March, 1985 passed by the University of Gorakhpur (hereinafter referred to as the University) cancelling the petitioners' B.A. Part examination of the year 1984 and debarring them from appearing in the 1985 examination may be quashed. 2. The material averments in the memorandum of the petition are these. The petitioners appeared in the B.A. Part 1 examination held in May/June, 1984 and were cleared to have passed the said examination on 23rd September, 1984. They were issued marks sheet by die college and after the deposit of the requisite fees they were admitted to B.A. Part II class. They prosecuted their studies in that class for the whole year. Subsequently, a communication from the University was received by the college authorities on 19th March, 1985 wherein it was stated that the petitioners B.A. Part examination of the year 1984 had been cancelled and they had been debarred from appearing in the 1985 examination. Thereafter the Principal took necessary steps of issuing notices to the petitioners. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the University. In it, the material averments are there. At no stage the petitions were declared to have passed B.A. Part examination. Their results had been withheld. It was reported that they had used unfair means while answering Economics Second Paper, A page of a particular text book was discoverer from the answer book of one of the candidates (One of the petitioners). His answer tallied with the constants of that page. Similar answers were found in the answer books of the other Petitioners. The matter was referred to a committee which examined the matter in detail and recorded a finding that the petitioners had indulged in mass copying. Since it was a case of mass copying, it was not necessary to send individual notices to the petitioners to show cause. 4. Two submissions have been made on behalf of the petitioners by Shri P.M.N. Singh. First, the principle of natural justice was not complied with as no notice to show cause was ever given to the petitioner. It is now well settled that in the case of mass copying it is not necessary to send individual notices. 5. 4. Two submissions have been made on behalf of the petitioners by Shri P.M.N. Singh. First, the principle of natural justice was not complied with as no notice to show cause was ever given to the petitioner. It is now well settled that in the case of mass copying it is not necessary to send individual notices. 5. Secondly, the University was estopped from cancelling the examination of the petitioners and debarring them, as it acted rather leisurely and at a belated stage. 6. As disclosed by the averments made in the counter-affidavit, the University acted promptly from the very beginning. The University did not declare the result of the petitioners and instead withheld their result and thereafter acted quite promptly in informing the Principal that the petitioners B.A. Part examination of the year 1984 had been cancelled and they had been debarred from appearing in 1985 examination. Therefore, the petitioners can not derive any advantage from the doctrine of estoppel. This court by means of an interim order had permitted the petitioners to appear in the B.A. Part II examination. However, this Court made it clear that the University was not bound to declare the result of the petitioners without further orders. There is nothing on record so suggest that the Court was ever approached by the petitioners with the prayer that their results may be declared. There is nothing on record to suggest that, in fact, the petitioners appeared in the B.A. Part II examination. However, it is made clear that if the petitioners or any one of the come out with the case that they, he or she appeared in the B.A. Part II examination and the result was duly declared and they, he or she had been declared successful, it will be open to them him or her to approach this court with an application to get an appropriate order passed on this petition. At the moment, I find no merit in this petition. 7. The petition is dismissed but without any order as to costs.