R. H. ZAIDI, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER by means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to admit the petitioner in B. Com. (Honrs.) Part I, 1997-98 session and to permit him to pursue his studies in the aforesaid course in Banaras Hindu University. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case, as set out in the writ petition, are that it was in the year 1996-97 that the petitioner appeared in the entrance examination for admission in the aforesaid course ; but was not allowed to complete the said examination by the invigilator Inspite of protest. In the year 1997-98, applications were again invited for appearing in the entrance examination by the university. The petitioner again applied for permission to appear in the said examination after fulfilling all the formalities for the same. He was issued a provisional admit card and was allotted Roll No. 42853 by the University. The application form of the petitioner was accepted and thereafter he was permitted to appear in the said examination held on 10. 6. 1997. Result of the said examination was declared and petitioner was also declared to have qualified in the said examination for admission in the aforesaid course. Intimation of which was also sent to the petitioner by registered post. Petitioner was, thereafter, invited to attend the office between 1st august and 2nd August, 1997 for seeking admission. Petitioner on receipt of the said intimation produced all the certificates and credentials, which were required. The certificates produced by the petitioner were accepted. However, he was given a memo indicating that he was required to produce character certificate by 20. 8. 1997. In the said memo, it was also indicated that petitioners case will be considered after seeking clearance from the office of the Controller of examination. Petitioner obtained character certificate from the Institution last attended and also submitted the same to the University. Thereafter, no intimation regarding grant of permission was given to the petitioner. He was, however, orally told that he cannot be admitted on the ground that he was not allowed to appear in the examination for the year 1996-97. Petitioner obtained character certificate from the Institution last attended and also submitted the same to the University. Thereafter, no intimation regarding grant of permission was given to the petitioner. He was, however, orally told that he cannot be admitted on the ground that he was not allowed to appear in the examination for the year 1996-97. Inspite of his requests and representations, admission in the said course was not given to the petitioner, therefore, he approached this Court and filed the present petition. ( 3 ) A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It is stated that in the previous years examination, petitioner was found talking with another student bearing Roll No. 42092. He was. therefore, debarred from reappearing in future examination. The order of debarment is also stated to have been approved by the Vice-Chancellor on 26. 6. 1996. It has been stated that for the above reason, petitioner was not entitled to be admitted in the aforesaid course and present petition is liable to be dismissed. ( 4 ) ON receipt of the counter-affidavit, petitioner filed an amendment application supported by affidavit controverting the facts stated in the counter-affidavit. It has been stated that the order of debarment was passed without affording him opportunity of hearing or to explain his case and the said order was never communicated to him except along with the counter-affidavit. Petitioner had absolutely no knowledge of the order. He, therefore, challenged the validity of the order of debarment by means of amendment application. He also sought some grounds of attack to be added in the writ petition. The said amendment application was allowed by this Court vide order dated 11. 11. 1997. The contesting respondents have also filed supplementary counter-affidavit controverting the facts stated in the supplementary affidavit. ( 5 ) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of the case. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that after completing all formalities and after obtaining permission from respondents, petitioner appeared in the entrance examination and also qualified in the same. there was. therefore, no Justification for the respondents not to admit the petitioner in the aforesaid course. It was urged that although in the year 1996-97 petitioner was not permitted to complete the examination ; but no further proceeding was taken against him. there was. therefore, no Justification for the respondents not to admit the petitioner in the aforesaid course. It was urged that although in the year 1996-97 petitioner was not permitted to complete the examination ; but no further proceeding was taken against him. he was not given any notice nor afforded any opportunity to explain his case, nor any order was passed against him debarring from appearing in the examination in future. It was urged that the order dated 26. 6. 96, alleged to have been passed by the Vice-Chancellor was never communicated to the petitioner before the same was given to him alongwith the counter-affidavit. The said order having been passed illegally and was also in violation of the principles of natural justice, the respondents are, therefore, liable to be directed to admit the petitioner in the aforesaid course. ( 7 ) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the contesting respondents has placed reliance upon the order dated 26. 6. 96 and submitted that the petitioner was debarred from appearing in the examination in future. Reliance was placed in support of his submission by the learned counsel appearing for contesting respondents upon the "statement of unfair practice" based on report on from various examination centres as well as upon the rules known as Instructions to the candidates appearing in entrance examination on 11. 11. 1996. ( 8 ) IT is evident from the facts stated above that in the year 1996-97 petitioner appeared in the entrance test for admission in the aforesaid course and that he was not permitted to complete the said examination. Admittedly, thereafter, no proceeding for debarment was taken against the petitioner, neither any notice is alleged to have been issued against him nor he was called upon to explain his conduct. In paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit, it has been stated as under : "that on 10. 6. 1996, while the petitioner was appearing in the entrance test for B. Com. (Honrs.), he was found Indulging in unfair means, inasmuch as he was found talking to a candidate having roll No. 42092 and that after the signatures of the invigilator, the petitioner had changed his Roll number from 42091 to 42092. 6. 1996, while the petitioner was appearing in the entrance test for B. Com. (Honrs.), he was found Indulging in unfair means, inasmuch as he was found talking to a candidate having roll No. 42092 and that after the signatures of the invigilator, the petitioner had changed his Roll number from 42091 to 42092. " ( 9 ) IT has also been stated that the matter pertaining to adoption of unfair means by the petitioner was placed before a Committee consisting of two members which resolved that the examination of petitioner be cancelled and he be further debarred from appearing in entrance examination in future in B. H. U. The said decision was subsequently, approved by the Vice-Chancellor on 26. 6. 1996. ( 10 ) THE aforesaid facts have been denied by the petitioner in rejoinder-affidavit. They are stated to be absolutely false and incorrect. From the record, it is not conclusively proved that the petitioner has talked to another student. Even assuming that the petitioner had talked to another student sitting In the Examination Hall, the question is as to whether the mere talking to other student, amounts to use of unfair means and if the same amounts to use of unfair means, whether the order of debarment alleged to have been passed against the petitioner and approved by the vice-Chancellor is valid and enforceable under law. ( 11 ) ALONGWITH the counter-affidavit, respondents have filed instructions providing a candidate appearing in the entrance examination. Paragraph 10 of the said instruction is relevant, which is quoted below : "an examinee found using unfair means during the examination shall be disqualified to take the entrance Test Examination and also be debarred from future Entrance test Examination of the university. The malpractice and unfair means shall include : possession of any unauthorised document/paper/information materials or any resource materials. Communication of information in writing or verbally or exchange of booklet/answer sheets to and from any other person during the examination period and any other malpractice amounting to obtaining undue advantage and impersonation. " From reading of the aforesaid paragraph, it is evident that communication of information in writing or verbally is prohibited and the examinee indulging in the same is liable to be punished. Mere talking has not been prohibited unless talks involved communication or Information. For example, one may pay respect to other student. " From reading of the aforesaid paragraph, it is evident that communication of information in writing or verbally is prohibited and the examinee indulging in the same is liable to be punished. Mere talking has not been prohibited unless talks involved communication or Information. For example, one may pay respect to other student. He may say namaste or salam-o-alaikum or any other word, which has got no relevance for the purpose of examination. Merely on the basis of uttering words, one cannot be punished. The charge against the petitioner was totally vague, baseless and on the basis of the same, in my opinion, no punishment as contemplated under the rules, could be awarded to the petitioner. ( 12 ) IT is well-settled in law that before awarding punishment or passing an order affecting civil right of a person, he is entitled an opportunity to explain the charge, if not the personal hearing. In cases of use of unfair means by the students in the examination, the delinquent students are entitled to an opportunity to explain the charge levelled against them. A reference in this regard may be made to the following decisions : board of High School and Intermediate Education, U. P. , Allahabad, AIR 1962 SC 111. State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani and others, AIR 1967 SC 1269 . Triambak Pati Tripathi v. Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U. P. Allahabad, air 1973 All 1 (FB ). Ghazanfar Rashid v. Secretary. Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U. P. , allahabad, AIR 1979 All 209 . S. N. Mukherjee v. Union of India and others. AIR 1980 SC 1984. S. L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan and others, AIR 1981 SC 136 . Mahesh Chaudhary v. Regional Manager and others, JT 1992 (2) SC 325. D. K. Yadav v. J. M. A. Industries Limited, 1993 (3) SCC 259 . ( 13 ) AFTER considering the above-noted decisions in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14007 of 1997, shailendra Kumar Srivastava v. Deputy Registrar (Examinations), University of Allahabad and others, connected with other petitions decided on 1. 8. D. K. Yadav v. J. M. A. Industries Limited, 1993 (3) SCC 259 . ( 13 ) AFTER considering the above-noted decisions in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14007 of 1997, shailendra Kumar Srivastava v. Deputy Registrar (Examinations), University of Allahabad and others, connected with other petitions decided on 1. 8. 1997, this Court ruled as under : "from the reading of the aforesaid decisions of Supreme Court and this Court, it is abundantly clear that the authorities dealing with the matters of unfair means act quasi-Judicially, therefore, principles of audi alteram partem are applicable and they are bound to afford opportunity of presenting his case to the candidate concerned, and if no opportunity is afforded the order is vitiated. Said rule is not confined to only the quasi-judicial matters, but it also applies to the administrative orders, which involve civil consequences. The orders are required to be passed consistently with the principles of natural Justice and must contain reasons. " ( 14 ) IN the present case, the respondents did not take any proceeding against the petitioner for awarding punishment, he was not afforded any opportunity to explain his case nor any order was passed against him. nor the same was communicated to him, even along with the counter-affidavit, no order has been placed on the record. What has been placed is a statement of unfair means, which refers to a number of students. The respondents are further required to record reason for passing the order. No reasons are stated to have been recorded. Thus, the order dated 26. 6. 1996 alleged to have been passed by the Vice Chancellor is wholly Illegal and without jurisdiction and deserves to be quashed. ( 15 ) IT may be mentioned that the petitioner in the year 1997-98 was issued admit card by the respondents. He was also given roll number and was permitted to appear in the entrance examination on the basis of which petitioner appeared in the said examination and thereafter he was declared to have passed and qualified the examination by the respondents. In view of law laid down by this Court in the case of Parvesh Kumar Dubey v. University of Kanpur and another. 1990 ALJ 832, the respondents are estopped from denying the petitioners right to be admitted in the aforesaid course. The respondents, therefore, liable to be directed to admit the petitioner in B. Com. In view of law laid down by this Court in the case of Parvesh Kumar Dubey v. University of Kanpur and another. 1990 ALJ 832, the respondents are estopped from denying the petitioners right to be admitted in the aforesaid course. The respondents, therefore, liable to be directed to admit the petitioner in B. Com. (Hons.) Part I for the sessions 1997-98. ( 16 ) IN view of the aforesaid discussions, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 26. 6. 1996 passed by the Vice Chancellor, contained in Annexure-C. A. 3 in so far it relates to the petitioner is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to admit the petitioner in b. Com. (Honrs.) Part I for the academic sessions 1997-98 and permit him to pursue his studies in the Banaras Hindu University in accordance with law. .