M. F. SALDANHA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner in this case was a second year student with the b. s. f. institute of technology at Bangalore. In the month of February 1995 certain serious incidents took place in that institute wherein, a lot of violence was let loose and some damage to property took place but more importantly at least four of the students sustained injuries of some consequence. I do not need to recount the background to this incidence because it is unfortunate that such violence was let loose and that too in an institute of this type and the authorities therefore, very rightly decided to take serious steps not only against those responsible for it but for purposes of ensuring that such incidents do not recur. It is in this background that an order came to be passed whereby the present petitioner and three others were rusticated from the institute on the ground that they were the main participants in the incident that took place. Certain punishments were also awarded to several other students but we are not immediately concerned with that aspect of the matter. The petitioner has challenged the action taken against him through the present petition and the usual plea is that there has been a flagrant breach of the principles of natural Justice in so far as it is contended that on the one hand there was no material to justify the action and secondly that the authorities have not followed the due procedure prior to taking such a serious step. I am informed that under the interim orders of this court, the petitioner was permitted to appear for his second year examination which he has done and the results of that examination have been withheld. Despite a strong plea made by the petitioner's learned Advocate this court did not grant any interim relief permitting the petitioner to rejoin the course even under orders of the court because this was strongly opposed by the authorities on the ground that it may be misunderstood as setting a premium on gross indiscipline. Despite a strong plea made by the petitioner's learned Advocate this court did not grant any interim relief permitting the petitioner to rejoin the course even under orders of the court because this was strongly opposed by the authorities on the ground that it may be misunderstood as setting a premium on gross indiscipline. The petitioner was therefore out of the institution and the petition was taken up for out of turn hearing in so far as his learned Advocate has pointed out that he is undergoing grave hardship and that the consequences to his career are very far-reaching and that therefore the court should adjudicate on the case at the very earliest point of time. ( 2 ) AT the hearing of this petition, on behalf of the respondent sa preliminary objection was raised with regard to the maintainability of this petition. It was contended that no writ would lie in so far as the institution in question is registered under the societies Registration Act, that it is not either set up nor is it funded or controlled by any governmental authority and that consequently, the acts of the authorities who run that institution are not amenable to the writ jurisdiction. The respondents learned Advocate submitted that by no test could the institution come within the definition of state within the meaning of article 12 of the Constitution nor could it come within the wider ambit of the expression instrumentality of state. Learned Advocate drew my attention to the various principles that have been culled out by the courts over the years and she submitted that if the structure, set up and running of the institution were to be examined in this background, that it will have to be held that no writ can lie against this institution or those who are running it. Reliance was sought to be placed on one decision of the supreme court in tekraj vasandi alias k. l. basandhi v union of India and others. That case related to the institute of constitutional and parliamentary studies and the Supreme Court had occasion to hold that it was not permissible to categorise it as state within the meaning of article 12. That case related to the institute of constitutional and parliamentary studies and the Supreme Court had occasion to hold that it was not permissible to categorise it as state within the meaning of article 12. Even though the designation of the institute suggested otherwise, the court held that it was a voluntary organisation and that right from the inception, it was not a governmental organisation and that consequently, a writ would not lie in respect of any grievance against that body. Learned Advocate submitted that even if it is shown that some grants are given to this institute by the government, that this would not bring it within the ambit of article 12 and her argument was that educational institutions including private educational institutions often receive grants from the government for purposes of furthering the objective of imparting education but that this does not change the character of the institution. In sum and substance, it was contended that the petition is not maintainable and that it is liable to fail on this ground. ( 3 ) THE petitioner's learned Advocate had obviously anticipated this objection. It has been pointed out in the petition that it is an institute which has been exclusively set up to impart specialised education to the children of the members of the b. s. f. it is contended that even though the institute is not officially managed by the ministry of defence, that the balance sheet of the institute will show that it does receive substantial grants from the ministry of home affairs. I must mention here that a certificate was produced on behalf of the respondents which is on record which stated that the institute is not funded by the defence ministry, as much as Rs. 45 lakhs per year comes from the ministry of home affairs. The finances of the institute are such that the bulk of the money required for running the institute comes from this source though a small amount is contributed by the b. s. f. jawans from whom a token reduction is made every month from their salaries. Further more, the appellant's learned Advocate drew my attention to the fact that the governing body of the institute consists of various officials all of whom are government officials in their official capacity and not in their individual capacity. Further more, the appellant's learned Advocate drew my attention to the fact that the governing body of the institute consists of various officials all of whom are government officials in their official capacity and not in their individual capacity. He submitted that having regard to the various tests that the courts applied for purposes of lifting the veil to institutions of this type, that the court will have to ascertain as to whether the institute is basically or to a large extent funded by the government and whether it comea under the overall supervision and control of the state. As far as these two tests are concerned, it is his submission that the facts are abundantly clear to illustrate that under the extended definition of state within the meaning of article 12 of the Constitution as has now emerged after various decisions starting from the case of ajay hasia v khalid mujib sehravardi and others that this court will have to brush aside the preliminary objection and hear the petition on merits. ( 4 ) THIS is not a border line case because the law with regard to article 12 is now well-settled and to my mind a mere perusal of the prospectus of the b. s. f. institute of technology will very clearly indicate that it does come within the overall supervision and control of the state. For purposes of ascertaining the term 'control', it does not necessarily mean that the institute has to be set up by the government or that it must be run by one of the government departments. There are numerous instances where the supervision and control is exercised indirectly and the present instance is a classic one. The governing council consists of the following persons: director general, b. s. f.-chairman ig (admn.)-vice-chairman ig (comn.)-member ig (air)-member f. a.-member rep. Of aicte/hrd-member rep, of mha-member rep. There are numerous instances where the supervision and control is exercised indirectly and the present instance is a classic one. The governing council consists of the following persons: director general, b. s. f.-chairman ig (admn.)-vice-chairman ig (comn.)-member ig (air)-member f. a.-member rep. Of aicte/hrd-member rep, of mha-member rep. Of dgca-member d. d. (admn.)-member a scrutiny of the members of the governing council makes it very clear to my mind that for good reason the government itself has constituted this body to exercise overall control over the institute because it caters strictly to the needs of one sector of the armed forces namely the b. s. f. it is for this reason that the bulk of the finances required for the running of the institute come from the ministry of home affairs and whether it is called a grant or otherwise the fact remains that but for this financial lifeline, that institute would never have been able to run. There can be no dispute about the fact that therefore the total supervision and control over this institute vests with the state and therefore regardless of the legal set up of the institute namely that it is registered as a society, it would still come within the definition of instrumentality of state and the present petition therefore cannot be rejected or dismissed on the ground of maintainability. ( 5 ) COMING to the merits of the matter, the petitioner's learned Advocate has vehemently submitted that there is no evidence to connect the present petitioner with the incidents that had taken place. It is his case that the petitioner like all the other students was very much part of the institute, that when the trouble started, it was inevitable that all the students having entered the fray, petitioner's name also figured but the question that arises, as the counsel submits, is with regard to main involvement and culpability which rests on determining whether the petitioner was one of the main instigators which is the case of the institute or whether at all he-participated in the incident of violence. The learned Advocate submitted that the order of rustication mentions nothing. The learned Advocate submitted that the order of rustication mentions nothing. He further draws my attention to the extract from the enquiry proceedings wherein a detailed statement of the petitioner had been recorded and he points out from that, that the petitioner has very clearly indicated that he had not taken part in any of the incidents. Learned Advocate drew my attention to some of the questions put to the petitioner by the court of inquiry and he states that there was not even a direct confrontation as far as the petitioner goes with regard to any specific overt acts and an explanation asked from the petitioner and therefore the very case of the authorities that he was one of the main culprits in the unfortunate incident is without foundation. Learned Advocate submits that he fully shares the views that in an educational institution of this nature, instances of indiscipline and violence will have to be very severely dealt with. It is his submission, however, that the authorities have made a scapegoat of the petitioner and that this mistake would have been corrected if a proper enquiry had been conducted and if the petitioner had been given an opportunity of refuting the evidence against him and if the authorities had taken the trouble of sifting the material for purposes of concluding as to who precisely were the persons who deserved to be punished. Learned Advocate submits that in this background, the situation that emerges is that there is no concrete evidence that could justify the order of rustication and secondly, that such an order which has far-reaching consequences on the career of the petitioner could never have been passed had the rules of natural Justice been strictly observed. He therefore submits that this is a fit case in which the court must interfere and quash the order in question. ( 6 ) THE action of the respondents has been stoutly defended by their learned Advocate who among other things points out that it is incorrect to say that this is a case of no evidence. She has produced before me the proceedings and the report of the court of inquiry. I iind that the authorities did, having regard to the seriousness of the incidents, set up a full-fledged court of inquiry which was presided over by three service officers. She has produced before me the proceedings and the report of the court of inquiry. I iind that the authorities did, having regard to the seriousness of the incidents, set up a full-fledged court of inquiry which was presided over by three service officers. One cannot attribute either bias or motives to them and they had examined as many as 45 witnesses and have given detailed findings with reasons. On the basis of the material that was produced before the court of inquiry, it upheld the charge against the petitioner and the other three students on the ground that they were the main instigators and participants in the acts of violence. They have also upheld the charge against several other students who have also been participants in these incidents but to a lesser degree. Learned Advocate has submitted that the requisite procedure for purposes of ascertaining as to who were the persons who had taken part in the unfortunate incidents has been duly complied with and that the criticism under this head is therefore unjustified. ( 7 ) AS regards the case of the present petitioner, learned Advocate points out from the record that a show-cause notice was served on him but that the petitioner refused to accept it. She states that the next course of action that the authorities were required to adopt was that they directed his father to remain present before the authorities but despite a communication to him that he did not come. She further submits that having afforded an opportunity to the petitioner, that the authorities were not obliged to do anything more. The further submission is that a full-fledged enquiry has been conducted, that the facts have been very carefully examined and that it is on the basis of the findings recorded by the court of inquiry that the action was taken against the various students. A strong plea was made to the court that this is not a case which would warrant any judicial interference because the incidents were of extreme seriousness resulting in the closure of the institution for one month and that the students had also resorted to a hunger strike and that having regard to this background that no leniency can be shown as far as the main participants were concerned. The usual plea has also been advanced that the wrong signals will be sent out if this court were to interfere with the order and quash it or set it aside, as the impression will be created that even persons who resort to violence in prestigious institutions such as the present one could also get away on the basis of all sorts of technicalities. In sum and substance, learned Advocate submitted that even on merits no case is made out and that therefore this court ought not to interfere in the present situation. ( 8 ) I need to first deal with the two-fold objection raised by the petitioner's learned Advocate which is the main plank of his argument. The first of them is to the effect that there has not been strict compliance with the rules of natural justice. As far as this aspect of the matter is concerned, the record indicates that the authorities did serve a show-cause notice on the petitioner. It appears from the record that his behaviour and attitude at that point of time was such that he refused to accept the show-cause notice. The law requires that a party against whom action is contemplated must be afforded an opportunity to defend himself. In compliance with this requirement, the principles that should emerge are that the person must be given a reasonable chance of a defence. That chance is afforded when a show-cause notice is served on the party concerned because at that point of time if the show-cause notice is groundless and if there is a fair defence, it must be put forward. Furthermore, once such a defence is put forward, the person will be afforded the further opportunity of participating in the enquiry wherein either the guilt or the innocence of the party will be established. In the present instance unfortunately we have a student wherein the opportunity was afforded and the petitioner refused it. To my mind, the authorities were not obliged to repeat the offer in so far as the law only contemplates a reasonable opportunity and if a party refuses a show-cause notice and it has not put forward any defence, then the party forfeits the right to make a grievance at any later point of time. To my mind, the authorities were not obliged to repeat the offer in so far as the law only contemplates a reasonable opportunity and if a party refuses a show-cause notice and it has not put forward any defence, then the party forfeits the right to make a grievance at any later point of time. Under these circumstances as far as the first head is concerned, it is necessary to hold that the petitioner has not made out a case with regard to any breach. ( 9 ) AS regards the conduct of the main enquiry is concerned,one needs to draw a distinction between trials that are conducted before a court, disciplinary proceedings in service matters and the type of enquiries that are required to be conducted by universities and educational institutions in cases of misbehaviour or misconduct. There are certain formal requirements as far as the first categories are concerned, but as far as the next category is concerned, the principles of natural Justice still hold good in so far as the student should not be either condemned or punished without there being any adequate opportunity for a defence. One needs to make certain allowances where this head of institutions are concerned. Like in trials and formal disciplinary proceedings, the enquiry is required to be conducted by an unbiased authority and furthermore it is required to be conducted in such a way that all the facts be presented before that authority and the delinquent who desires to defend itself while participating in that enquiry be afforded a reasonable opportunity to establish whatever the party desires. It is these broad principles that are required to be observed and to my mind a scrutiny of the present record will indicate that all these principles had been observed. I find that the petitioner's statement has been recorded and it is true, as pointed out by the learned Advocate who represents him that he has not incriminated himself at all in that statement. He has sought to state that he ran away and did not take part in any of the incidents. Obviously at that point of time the petitioner cannot be expected to implicate himself. He has sought to state that he ran away and did not take part in any of the incidents. Obviously at that point of time the petitioner cannot be expected to implicate himself. He was asked a few questions, but what is pertinent is that in the course of making this detailed statement, the petitioner has not given any explanation with regard to the material that had emerged against him in the course of that enquiry. To my mind, the petitioner ought to have suggested to the court of inquiry as to why the other students would falsely implicate him which he has not done and he has not explained also as to why there are direct charges against him from them, including a charge of assault. These are aspects of the matter which to my mind are of significance. It cannot be said that the petitioner had no opportunity to put forward his defence or to refute this material. The petitioner had at one stage asked the enquiry committee to produce the concerned students and three of them had been called. Learned Advocate who represents the petitioner has criticised this procedure and he submits that the court of enquiry summoned three of the students whom the management desired to examine. The petitioner did make a grievance at that point of time with regard to the three students who had been called. To my mind, nothing prevented him from indicating very clearly if he wanted any witnesses of his choice to be examined. As I have already indicated, this was not a formal trial but a fact finding enquiry and what is necessary is that there has got to be a broad compliance with the rules of natural Justice and the principles of fairness. In those of the cases where these principles have been breached, the courts have, regardless of consequences. Interfered, but to my mind a careful scrutiny of the record indicates that this is not one such case where the principles of natural Justice have been given a go-bye. ( 10 ) THE petitioner's learned Advocate drew my attention to certain decisions which require to be referred to. The first of them is a decision of this court in the case of k. Sathyashankara shetty v mangalore university, wherein this court was required to strike down an order of expulsion against a student of the mangalore university. ( 10 ) THE petitioner's learned Advocate drew my attention to certain decisions which require to be referred to. The first of them is a decision of this court in the case of k. Sathyashankara shetty v mangalore university, wherein this court was required to strike down an order of expulsion against a student of the mangalore university. A perusal of that judgment will indicate, that the court took cognizance of glaring inconsistencies in the evidence and came to the conclusion that this was virtually a case of no evidence and that therefore the order was unsustainable. That decision to my mind will not avail the petitioner. This court had occasion to refer to the well known principle in rex v agricultural land tribunal ex. P in bracey , wherein the court had occasion to observe as follows: "it is also an error of law to give reasons which are inadequate, to act on no evidenee; on evidence which ought to have been rejected or to fail to take into consideration evidence which ought to have been considered". While dealing with this case, the petitioner's learned Advocate specifically attacked the so called notice which is alleged to have been served on the petitioner exhibit r-7. He read it out and pointed out to me that in sum and substance, the notice indicates that the petitioner has been found to be responsible for serious acts of violence, damage to property, assault, injury etc. And that therefore he is ordered to leave the campus immediately and that a tentative decision has been taken to rusticate him. Learned Advocate states that in effect, that this is in the form of a decision or an order communicated to the petitioner before the enquiry was held. The concluding part of the notice indicates that the recommendations regarding rustication have been made to the concerned authorities and that the petitioner's parents should come and see the concerned authorities if they so desire with regard to the action. The concluding part of the notice indicates that the recommendations regarding rustication have been made to the concerned authorities and that the petitioner's parents should come and see the concerned authorities if they so desire with regard to the action. What the learned Advocate submits is that the show-cause notice can only set out charges or allegations and that it should indicate that the matter is going to be looked into and give the person an opportunity of defending himself and he contends that the present memorandum which is in fact an order virtually prejudges the whole case so far as the punishment of rustication has already been indicated in that order. His criticism is therefore that in these circumstances the enquiry was totally redundant and of no consequence if the decision had already been taken. He submits that on this ground alone the entire action will have to be struck down. ( 11 ) AS far as this aspect of the matter is concerned, i doconcede that the memorandum in question is not well worded. It does also indicate that the petitioner was asked to leave the campus and it was made known that a recommendation for his rustication had been conveyed to the authority. I do not however share the view that the case has been prejudged in so far as one has to view it in the context and sequence of the incident. Very serious acts of violence and indiscipline had taken place in the institution and the authorities at that point of time had decided to send the main persons who were responsible for the same away from that place. The petitioner was one of them. They had also communicated in that memorandum that having regard to the acts that are attributed to the petitioner that there was a recommendation for his rustication. I do agree that this memorandum is not in the form of a formal show-cause notice but the ingredients were all there. The charges against the petitioner are set out and the authorities had even indicated the possible consequences of those acts. What is most important is that the memorandum ends with the requirement that if the petitioner or his parents desire to point out anything, that they must come and do the same before the authority. The charges against the petitioner are set out and the authorities had even indicated the possible consequences of those acts. What is most important is that the memorandum ends with the requirement that if the petitioner or his parents desire to point out anything, that they must come and do the same before the authority. To my mind, in this background even though the memorandum could have been better worded, it does not suffer from such infirmity as would be sufficient for this court to either strike it down or to vitiate the enquiry. ( 12 ) THE petitioner's learned Advocate has next relied on another decision of this court in the case of rajiv kundra v university of Bangalore, gnanabharathi, Bangalore and others. This was a case of rustication but the court was required to intervene because the required procedure had not been followed and the court ultimately held that the petitioner had been condemned unheard. The facts of that case are distinguishable from the present one and that with regard to the principles laid down by the court, to my mind, no parallel can be drawn between the two cases. ( 13 ) PETITIONER's learned Advocate has then relied on anotherdecision of this court in the case of durgappa b. V principal, basaveshwara engineering college, bagalkot and another , wherein the action proceeded merely on the basis of a show-cause notice without holding any enquiry. I do concede that one of the important principles which the court laid down in that decision was the consequences of the action in question and in this background the court held that the action was required to be quashed. I have already held that the requisite procedure was followed in the present case and hence that decision will not avail the petitioner. Next, the petitioner's learned Advocate has drawn my attention to another decision of this court in the case of mohammad zafar sharief v Karnataka university. This was one of the cases in which the requisite procedure was not followed. The court had pointed out that under the Karnataka State University Acts, that it was mandatory before punishment is imposed on the students, to seek an explanation and then take further action. This was one of the cases in which the requisite procedure was not followed. The court had pointed out that under the Karnataka State University Acts, that it was mandatory before punishment is imposed on the students, to seek an explanation and then take further action. Once again, this was a case in which the court was required to intervene because of the flagrant breach of procedure which to my mind is not the case in the present instance. Petitioner's learned Advocate then drew my attention to another decision of the court in the case of v. r, naik v director, pre-university education and another. In this case, there was an allegation of impersonation at the examination against student and he was debarred from taking the further examination. The court had occasion to intervene in the action principally on the ground that in the absence of the holding of an enquiry, that the order in question would have to be struck down on the ground of arbitrariness. One does accept the position that in cases of disciplinary action where apart from damage to the student's career the result is one of serious stigma, that having regard to the fall out and the attendant consequences that a court will have to observe a degree of considerable rigorousness while examining whether the action was justified or not. Tt is for this reason that i had carefully scrutinised the type of enquiry that was held in the present case and to my mind, the enquiry does pass the test of procedural correctness. Lastly, the petitioner's learned Advocate drew my attention to the well known decision of the Supreme Court in the case of all India sainik schools employees' association v defence minister-cum-chairman, board of governors, sainik school society, New Delhi and others, with regard to the aspect of maintainability of the petition. The Supreme Court had occasion to examine the character of the sainik school society and to hold that it comes within the ambit of definition of state because the entire funding is by the state government and the central government but more importantly, the overall control vests in the government authority. I have already dealt with this aspect of the matter and held that in the present instance the petition is maintainable and therefore, one does not need to debate with regard to this aspect of the matter. I have already dealt with this aspect of the matter and held that in the present instance the petition is maintainable and therefore, one does not need to debate with regard to this aspect of the matter. ( 14 ) THE last aspect of the case that remains to be considered is with regard to the gravity of the punishment that is imposed on the petitioner. Petitioner's learned Advocate has pointed out to me that this was a solitary incident, that the petitioner has obtained a first class in his first year examination, that he is a bright student, that he is the son of a jawan and as a result of the action, that he is facing very serious consequences in so far as his educational career has been disrupted and that he will be left with no opportunity to earn his livelihood. Without prejudice to his contention that the action itself was not justified in law, learned Advocate has submitted that the authorities ought not to have taken the extreme step of rusticating the petitioner from the institution. On the other hand, the action has been defended by the respondents on the ground that the incidents were of utmost seriousness and because it is very necessary to take deterrent action in cases of the present type, learned Advocate has also produced an earlier letter of the year 1994 written to the petitioner's parents indicating that he had indulged in acts of violence and that there was something wrong with him. It is submitted that this was not the first time when the petitioner has misbehaved and that therefore, the authorities were left with no option except to rusticate him from the institution. ( 15 ) I do share the view that discipline is paramount in instances of the present type and particularly where the educational sector is concerned. The position gets far more accentuated in an institution of the present type where the children of service personnel are being trained. It is therefore very necessary that adequate steps be taken to maintain discipline but to my mind, while such steps require to be taken, one cannot loose sight of the consequences of action of this type. The position gets far more accentuated in an institution of the present type where the children of service personnel are being trained. It is therefore very necessary that adequate steps be taken to maintain discipline but to my mind, while such steps require to be taken, one cannot loose sight of the consequences of action of this type. I have gone through the facts of this case and the record of the enquiry and i do share the view that a serious view requires to be taken, but one needs to balance it in the background of the disastrous consequences that will occur as a result of rustication from the institution. The petitioner in this case was a bright student who had done well in his first year examination. We do not know, having regard to the unfortunate incident as to how he did fail in the next examination even though he was allowed to appear. In the overall context, to my mind the order of rustication was too harsh having regard to the general complexion of the case. It is only with regard to this limited aspect that some degree of interference will be necessary. Though i do maintain that the authorities were fully justified in holding the enquiry and that there is enough material on record to hold that the petitioner was guilty of serious acts of misconduct, to my mind having regard to his age and background one cannot condemn him for the rest of the his life because of what had happened on those days. Under these circumstances and for the special reasons indicated above, i propose to give the petitioner one additional chance subject however to imposition of very rigorous conditions because i share the views expressed by the respondents learned Advocate that the wrong impression should not be created that the courts show leniency in such cases. Under the circumstances the following directions are issued (a) that while the findings against the petitioner are maintained and the need for punishing him is also upheld, it is directed that in keeping with the seriousness of the acts committed by the petitioner and having regard to the fact that his career is paramount, i propose to modify the order of rustication and set it aside while imposing on the petitioner, a heavy fine. A lot of damage has taken place and injuries have also resulted for which the petitioner was one of those responsible. The other students who had taken part in the incident were made to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each but having regard to the acts committed by the petitioner he should be directed to pay a fine quantified at Rs. 5,000/ -. I propose to issue special directions with regard to this aspect of the matter in so far as the acts of misconduct have been committed by the petitioner and under these circumstances, i do not propose to punish his poor parents for what he has done. In the circumstances, the petitioner will have to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- out of the said fine within a period of eight weeks from today. As far as the remaining amount is concerned, petitioner shall execute a bond on stamp paper that the balance amount of Rs. 4,000/- will be paid by him to the institute out of his own earnings after he passes out and that appropriate recovery proceedings may be taken against him if he fails to pay the said amount within an outer limit of three years from the date on which he passes out from the institution. (b) the petitioner shall submit to the head of the institute a letter in his own writing expressing unconditional regret for what has happened and shall also in the letter indicate that having regard to the special indulgence shown by the court that he will not participate in any acts of indiscipline or violence right through the time, he is permitted to continue in the institute and he shall also indicate that the order of rustication which has been set aside by this court will stand revived if it is found that he has indulged in any such acts. (c) since the petitioner has already suffered sufficiently, the authorities shall permit him to rejoin his studies and to enter the campus immediately on his giving the undertaking to the authorities concerned. (d) though I have already held that the action was justified, this court needs to take special cognizance of the economic circumstances of the boy concerned, his age and background but more importantly, of his future and even if punishment is to be awarded it has got to be in consonance with these factors. (d) though I have already held that the action was justified, this court needs to take special cognizance of the economic circumstances of the boy concerned, his age and background but more importantly, of his future and even if punishment is to be awarded it has got to be in consonance with these factors. It is for this reason that the court has shown special indulgence. (e) as a necessary consequence, the authorities shall immediately inform the petitioner of his results in the second year examination. ( 16 ) THE petition partially succeeds. Rule is made absolute to that extent. No order as to costs. --- *** --- .