R. H. ZAIDI, J. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to3. 2. By means of the present petitioi under Article 226 of the Constitution o India, the petitioner prays for a writ, orde or direction in the nature ofcertiorari quash ing the impugned order dated 7-2-1996 w here by the result of the petitioner of B. . A Part-II Examination, 1995 has been can celled and he has further been debarred from appearing in the Examination 1996. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was nothing on record to show that the petitioner has actually used the unauthorised material, which is alleged to have been recovered from his possession. 4. This Court directed the respondents to produce the record of the case. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents today at the time of hearing produced the record of the case. 5. It is correct that from the record i. e. the admit card, it is apparent that something has been written by pencil on the back of it but the writing is not legible. The expert, who has examined the unauthorised material, i. e. admit card, has reported that the part of the said writing was utilised by the petitioner in solving the question No. 6. However, it has not been specified that what part of the said unauthorised material was utilised by the petitioner. 6. I have perused the admit card in question as well as answer books of the petitioner. To me the said material does not appear to have been utilised by the petitioner in solving the question No. 6. However, the unauthorised material has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner in the examination hall itself. Therefore, the provisions of the Ordinances on the use of Unfairmeans and Causing Dis turbances in Examination are attracted in the present case. 7. Ordinance 1. 6 of the aforesaid Or dinance provides as under:- "1. 6. The Committee referred to in Or dinance 1. 4 shall award the following punishment after placing on record that it has examined all the documents referred to in Ordinance 1. 5 and that it has satisfied itself regarding the facts of the mat ter. 7. Ordinance 1. 6 of the aforesaid Or dinance provides as under:- "1. 6. The Committee referred to in Or dinance 1. 4 shall award the following punishment after placing on record that it has examined all the documents referred to in Ordinance 1. 5 and that it has satisfied itself regarding the facts of the mat ter. A. (i) For possession of unauthorised material, or (ii) For leaving the examination hall without surrendering the examination script to an in vigilator, or (iii) For communicating with other ex aminees or any one else inside or outside the examination hall. Cancellation of the results of the candidate in the examination in question. B. (i) For transcribing any part or the whole of the unauthorised material of which he was found in possession, or (ii) for intimidating or threatening any in vigilator or person on duty in the examination. Cancellation of the results of the candidate in the examination in question and debarment from the corresponding (and any other) sub sequent examinations of the next academic ses sion. C. For manhandling or using violence against any invigilator or person on duty in the examination. Such cases, after scrutiny by the Committee referred to in Ordinance 1. 4, shall be forwarded to the Proctor for necessary action. " 8. The present case falls under Clause A (i) of the aforesaid ordinance as the charge/description of unauthorised material, was described in the charge sheet/show cause notice as under: - 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and the provisions of Ordinance referred to above, the examination of the petitioner for the year 1995 was liable to be cancelledand the same has rightly been cancelled, but as the alleged unauthorised material, or part there of. f was neither alleged to have been utilised nor the same has been utilised by the petitioner, the petitioner could not be debarred from appearing in the Examina tion for the year 1996. The writ petition is liable to be allowed. 10. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed in part. The order impugned in the present petition dated 7-2-1996 is quashed to the extent that it debars the petitioner from appearing in the ensui g Examination for the year 1996. The petitioner will be at liberty to approach the authority concerned to complete the necessary formalities for his appearance in the ensuing Examination of the year 1996. The order impugned in the present petition dated 7-2-1996 is quashed to the extent that it debars the petitioner from appearing in the ensui g Examination for the year 1996. The petitioner will be at liberty to approach the authority concerned to complete the necessary formalities for his appearance in the ensuing Examination of the year 1996. Petition partly allowed. .