TIRATH S. THAKUR, J. ( 1 ) ISSUE rule. With consent, this petition has been heard for final disposal at this stage itself. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is a final year b. pharma student studying in h. k. s. pharmacy college, gulbarga, which is affiliated to the respondent-gulbarga university. He appeared for the final year b. Pharma examination in july, 1996 and was declared to have failed in two subjects viz. , pharma analysis-ii and pharmacognosy-ii. He then made an application seeking retotalling as per the regulations of the' university. The retotalling results were announced on 3rd of december, 1996, but indicated no change in the marks awarded to the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter made an application seeking revaluation of the aforesaid two subjects. This request was by a communication dated 1st of january, 1997, rejected by the university on the recommendations of the committee constituted to scrutinise the answer scripts. Aggrieved, the petitioner has come up with the present petition for a certiorari quashing the same and a mandamus directing the respondent to consider the petitioner's request for revaluation. ( 3 ) THE regulations governing revaluation of answer scripts framed by the respondent-university provide for revaluation of answer scripts only in certain circumstances. The regulations provide that the revaluation shall be confined only to theory papers and shall be carried out in accordance with the procedure prescribed in that regard. Regulation 3 prescribes the said procedure and reads thus:"3. Procedure to apply for revaluation. (a) a candidate desirous of applying for revaluation shall first apply for retotalling of marks in the concerned subject (s) as per the university rules. (B) if a candidate is not satisfied with the result of retotalling he shall write a letter to the registrar (evaluation) within 15 days, clearly indicating the reasons for dissatisfaction and request him to grant a permission to apply for revaluation. (C) on receipt of such letter the vice-chancellor, after verification of the reasons stated in the letter, shall constitute a committee to look into the matter. (D) the committee so constituted shall (i) make thorough scrutiny of the answer script (s) concerned and (ii) verify his earlier academic records if necessary, and submit a report to the registrar (evaluation), specifically indicating whether it is a fit case for revaluation or not. (D) the committee so constituted shall (i) make thorough scrutiny of the answer script (s) concerned and (ii) verify his earlier academic records if necessary, and submit a report to the registrar (evaluation), specifically indicating whether it is a fit case for revaluation or not. (E) on the consideration of the committee's recommendations, the registrar (evaluation) in consultation with the vice-chancellor shall grant permission to the candidate concerned to apply for revaluation". ( 4 ) A plain reading of the above regulation shows that on receipt of a request for revaluation, the vice-chancellor is required to constitute a committee to look into the matter. The committee so constituted is required to make a thorough scrutiny of the answer scripts concerned and verify the earlier academic record of the candidate, if necessary, and submit a report to the registrar (evaluation) specifically indicating whether or not it is a fit case for revaluation. What is important is that the committee constituted for purposes of examining the tenability of the request is required to 'submit a report' based on the scrutiny of the answer scripts and the verification of the earlier academic record of the candidate concerned. It is only upon consideration of the committee's recommendation that the registrar (evaluation) is in consultation with the vice-chancellor required to grant permission to the candidate to apply for revaluation. It is therefore obvious that the question whether or not the candidate is entitled to apply for revaluation totally turn on the committee's scrutiny of the answer scripts in the context of the previous record of the candidate. Any such scrutiny has to culminate in a report by the committee to be submitted to the registrar. This implies that the committee must while arriving at a conclusion one way or the other disclose in its report the reasons for doing so. The very fact that a report is required to be submitted is sufficient to show that the committee must disclose the basis or the reasoning by reference to which it has arrived at its conclusion in making its recommendation. No such report has been produced by the respondent in the present case. ( 5 ) MR. The very fact that a report is required to be submitted is sufficient to show that the committee must disclose the basis or the reasoning by reference to which it has arrived at its conclusion in making its recommendation. No such report has been produced by the respondent in the present case. ( 5 ) MR. Mali patil, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-university, however, argued on the basis of the remarks recorded by the members of the committee in what has been produced as Annexure r-l that the said remarks constitute a report within the meaning of regulation 3. All that is contained in Annexure r-l is a cryptic statement to the following effect-"not recommended for revaluation. " this, I am afraid cannot be termed to be a report within the meaning of regulation 3 (d) supra. While it is true that academic bodies like a committee constituted for purposes of scrutiny of answer scripts are not required to give detailed reasons for its conclusions as is customary with judicial or quasi-judicial bodies yet the least that is expected from a statutory body like the committee in the present case is to demonstrate due and proper application of mind on its part to what is relevant for determining the issues that fall for its consideration. A telegraphic comment like "not recommended for revaluation" recorded by the committee is in my opinion wholly insufficient to disclose application of mind on the part of the committee. Application of mind is demonstrated by disclosure of mind which in turn is best done by recording the reasons no matter brief in nature for the conclusions drawn. The committee has not in the instant case even recorded that it has scrutinised the answer scripts carefully as is required under regulation 3 (d) or that it has taken into consideration the earlier academic record of the candidate nor has the committee indicated as to what the scrutiny of the scripts if carried out had revealed to it. Ft is therefore difficult to accept the comments recorded by the committee on the margin-annexure r-l to be tantamount to a report within the comprehension of regulation 3. Ft is therefore difficult to accept the comments recorded by the committee on the margin-annexure r-l to be tantamount to a report within the comprehension of regulation 3. The term 'report' has not been defined by the regulations but when seen in the context in which it appears in the regulations would mean a brief statement on what the committee did and what it observed from the answer scripts of the candidate seeking revaluation. This is so even when we take the ordinary and literal meaning as given by websters dictionary which defines the term report thus:"something that gives information: a detailed account or statement: an account or statement of the facts of a legal case heard and of the decision and opinion of the court or quasi-judicial administrative agency determining the case: a record of the speeches and remarks delivered and the actions taken during a meeting or session: a formal account of the results of an investigation given by a person or group authorised or delegated to make the investigation, a statement of a student's academic record for a particular period often including also an evaluation of his rate of progress". ( 6 ) THAT being so, the decision taken by the university must be deemed to have been vitiated on account of the invalidity attached to the report of the committee particularly when the said decision is entirely based on the so-called report made by the committee. ( 7 ) IN the result, this petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. Impugned communication, dated 1-1-1997 rejecting the petitioner's request for revaluation in so far as the petitioner's case is concerned is hereby quashed and the respondent-university directed to consider afresh the said request in accordance with the regulations and keeping in view the observations made herein above. The needful shall be done by the university within 4 weeks from the date a copy of this order is produced by the petitioner before the respondent. No costs. --- *** --- .