H. N. TILHARI, J. ( 1 ) BY this petition, the petitioner has sought the writ of certiorari or writ, order or direction to quash Annexure-A issued by the respondents bearing memo No. D. t. e. 38 a. c. m. (1) 92, dated 2-3-1993, issued by the director of technical education, Bangalore, to the petitioner cancelling the petitioner's admission in first year b. e. degree course in Bangalore institute of technology as the petitioner has not been eligible to allotment of seat under c category as investigated by the director of backward classes and minorities, Bangalore (respondent 2) and prayed for the grant of such other reliefs the court may deem fit. Petitioner also claimed interim relief and prayed that the order impugned in this writ petition its implementation be kept in abeyance pending the disposal of this writ petition. ( 2 ) THE petitioner's case is as follows:that the petitioner was a muslim candidate coming under c-category as per government order s. w. l. e. e. b. c. a. 86, dated 13-10-1986. That his father had been a petty shopkeeper, whose annual income was Rs. 5,000/- and that he filed a declaration in form 3 and had also produced a certificate issued by the assistant revenue officer of the corporation, Bangalore, on 25-3-1992. The petitioner as such was issued card No. 1319 for the year 1992-93, by the Bangalore institute of technology and since then, he has been regularly attending classes and had completed the first semester of 1st year b. e. degree course in Bangalore institute of technology and had paid all the fees payable from time to time in spite of financial difficulties. Further, that on 2-3-1993, the director of technical education in karnataka, issued the memo to the effect that petitioner's admission in first year b. e. course was thereby being cancelled as according to that memo, petitioner claimed and was allotted seat under class-c category to which he was not eligible as per investigation from the director of backward classes and minority, Bangalore. That the order containing Annexure-A further mentions that further action will be initiated against petitioner and petitioner's parents for producing false certificates for claiming admission. That the order containing Annexure-A further mentions that further action will be initiated against petitioner and petitioner's parents for producing false certificates for claiming admission. That neither petitioner nor petitioner's father were aware of the any alleged investigation made by the 2nd respondent and further they were not aware of the basis of drawing of the conclusion by the respondents regarding the alleged illegibility of the petitioner. That before passing of these adverse orders as contained in annexure-a. Cancelling the petitioner's admission to 1st year b. e. course, no show-cause notice had been issued to the petitioner or petitioner's father and the report alleged had never been brought to the notice of the petitioner before passing of order annexure-a. In such circumstances, the petitioner's cast, is that passing of this order Annexure-A without complying with the principles of natural Justice and without providing reasonable, proper and due opportunity to the petitioner to show cause is nullity and (sic) the petitioner's case is the order impugned is null and void being devoid of compliance of natural justice. ( 3 ) ON behalf of the opposite parties, a counter-affidavit in the form of statement of objections has been filed. The petitioner case as above has not been denied anywhere. It has no where been alleged or stated that the petitioner had been given any opportunity of hearing to show cause against the allegations that the petitioner or petitioner's father filed false affidavit and certificates and on that basis the authorities desired or intended to take action of cancelling the admission so, the petitioner should show cause why the admission be not cancelled. What the respondents have stated simplicitor is that director of backward classes subsequently verified that the income of the petitioner's father was more than 10,0007- and so, the petitioner did not belonged to class-c category and so was not entitled to claim a seat under c-group and this report is sent to the director of technical education and on account of that report, the director of technical education issued the impugned order at annexure-a, cancelling the admission of the petitioner in 1st year b. e. course. Further, the case of the opposite parties is that no doubt, the petitioner is a muslim and was being considered under group-c, but, his father's income exceeds 10,oooa and therefore, on being satisfied that petitioner's income was more than Rs. Further, the case of the opposite parties is that no doubt, the petitioner is a muslim and was being considered under group-c, but, his father's income exceeds 10,oooa and therefore, on being satisfied that petitioner's income was more than Rs. 10,0007-, even then he has obtained admission to c-group on the basis of the certificate produced by him which appeared to be false, the authorities cancelled the admission. It has been stated in paragraph-4 that the petitioner's case that impugned order did not comply with the principles of natural justice, or that it is not a speaking order and no proper enquiry has been held are untenable, as the admission rules contemplate that the admission is liable to be cancelled, if authorities are satisfied on verification that declaration is false and once the authorities were satisfied about the declaration of income that it exceeds Rs. 10,0007-, it was open to the authorities to cancel the admission and it is not open to the petitioner to content that he has not been given opportunity of hearing and authorities have not complied with the rules of natural justice. ( 4 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri shekara shetty and learned high court pleader-Smt. L. y. premavathi. The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri shekara shetty contended that leaving apart everything, once the admission has been granted to the petitioner under class-c seats on the basis of the certificate issued by the authorities and the declaration made and petitioner has completed one year while at the time of passing of that order after having spent money also, the opposite parties could not have cancelled the admission, particularly without providing any opportunity to the petitioner of hearing. Further, that every order which has got civil consequences and tendency to affect the interest of the person is required to be passed in consonance with the principles of natural Justice and fair play, even if the rules dealing with those matters are silent. That the present impugned order has got civil consequences of adverse interference of his right of studying in engineering course which had accrued to him after admission b. e. course was granted to him after considering all the necessary facts that the petitioner belonged to that category and a necessary certificate had been issued by the authority before the admission could be granted. So, he submitted that the order impugned is illegal, null and void. Lastly, the petitioner's counsel submitted that petitioner has almost completed this course, only one semester remains for which examinations have already commenced. The opposite high court government pleader appearing on behalf of the opposite parties contended that when the opposite parties have got a verified information from the director of backward classes and minorities, Bangalore that the petitioner by making false affidavit and false certificate got his admission as his father's income was more than Rs. 10,000/- and the director informed that the petitioner was not entitled to admission in c-category seat, that by itself, was sufficient for the authorities to cancel the admission which has been obtained by the petitioner by fraudulent representation done by the petitioner and his father. Once this came out after enquiry made by the director of backward classes and minorities of karnataka, there was no question of the petitioner was being asked or called upon in that matter, except illegal action being taken. Further, that if this writ petition is to be allowed and if this is a case, where prima facie it appear to the authorities that it is a case of fraud being played with the public institution, then the authorities may be directed really to consider the matter afresh according to principles of natural Justice and fair play and if they do not find at that time that fraud had not been done or had not been played, then petitioner should be allowed the benefit of his admission and examination and till then, the opposite parties may be allowed to withhold the result of the petitioner's examination. ( 5 ) I have applied my mind to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. ( 5 ) I have applied my mind to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. From the perusal of this writ petition and the counter-affidavit, no doubt, one thing comes out beyond doubt that when the director of technical education received the report or information and according to which the petitioner had obtained the admission by producing certificate and by making ordering made a declaration by his i. e. , petitioner's father or on the basis of the certificate issued by the authorities, which according to the opposite parties were not correct and the petitioner was not entitled to get admission and as he had been given admission on the basis of those documents and it may be said that it is open to the authorities to modify or to pass appropriate order to cancel the admission, but the order of cancellation of admission on the ground that it was secured or got on the basis of false certificate, fraud or misrepresentation or of representation of false affidavit or false certificate, such order cancelling and missing has got civil consequences not only with reference to the course of study, but with reference to the future life and carrier of a person. Therefore as regards orders having civil consequences, it is well-settled principle of law as laid down in State of Orissa v Dr. (miss) binapani dei and others, that such order have got to be passed only after following the principles of natural justice. If the rules are silent then the person, who is going to be affected by those orders, should be given reasonable opportunities of showing cause against those charges or allegations made before any action is being taken. In the case of ratanlal sharma v managing committee, at paragraph 9, Supreme Court also laid it down and observed at page 17 as follows: "in administrative law, rules of natural Justice are foundational and fundamental concepts and law is now well-settled that the principles of natural Justice are part of the legal and judicial procedures". In the case of ratanlal sharma v managing committee, at paragraph 9, Supreme Court also laid it down and observed at page 17 as follows: "in administrative law, rules of natural Justice are foundational and fundamental concepts and law is now well-settled that the principles of natural Justice are part of the legal and judicial procedures". Their lordships further observed that the law courts in england and also in India including the Supreme Court have specifically held that principles of natural Justice is applicable also in administrative proceedings and in this context, their lordships referred to the case of binapani dei, supra, their lordships further observed at page 18 as under: "there are number of decisions where application of principle of natural Justice in decision making process administrative body having civil consequences has been upheld by this court, but it is not necessary to refer to all these cases". This being the settled principle that in matters of administrative decision making, particularly in cases where the order impugned has got civil consequences, principles of natural Justice and fair play have got to be followed which include as one of its constituents that parties should be given reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the allegations made against him as well as the action proposed to be taken against him. ( 6 ) IF an order as in the present case has been passed with out following the principles of natural Justice or without giving proper opportunity to the petitioner before cancelling his admission, the order can be said to be illegal, null and void, as it is well-settled that orders passed in breach of the principles of natural Justice without following the principles of natural Justice and fair play, such orders are void and null. Thus considered in my opinion, the order made deserves to be quashed. The order contained in Annexure-A dated 2-3-1993, as having passed in violation of natural Justice deserves to be quashed and the petition deserves to be allowed. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed, but it is clarified that it is always open to the opposite parties, if they think it very necessary to proceed afresh they may take any action according to law keeping in view the principles laid down above. ( 7 ) SMT. Premavathi, learned high court government pleaderis permitted to file memo of appearance. --- *** --- .