A. K. YOG, J. ( 1 ) ALL these petitions were clubbed and heard together as jointly agreed by the learned counsels for the parties. Salient facts of the cases are not disputed. ( 2 ) THESE petitions have been filed by certain students, registered bonafide students of the University of Allahabad (called the university) and its affiliated Colleges (called the colleges) being aggrieved due to inaction of the Respondents in the matters of unfair means cases and failing to discharge their statutory obligation under Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 (called the act, 1973) due to pendency of criminal proceedings under The U. P. Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act,. 1998 (called the act, 1998) and as a consequence thereof these students being prevented from further pursing their respective academic studies. ( 3 ) THESE Petitioners are charged of using means while appearing in their respective examination conducted by the University /colleges. First Information Reports have been lodged by their respective institutions before concerned Police Stations. It is alleged during argument that in majority of cases investigation itself has not been initiated as yet. In some cases, proceedings are still at investigation stage. In some others, after investigation, charge sheets have been submitted before the concerned Judicial Magistrate under Act 1998. ( 4 ) COMMON grievance is to the effect that the concerned Respondent authorities have not proceeded with the hearing of the cases of use of unfair means as contemplated under the Statutes, the Regulations and/or the Ordinances of a University framed under the Act, 1973 i. e. Chapter XXVIII of the University of Allahabad Calendar, 1987-88 pp 450. No party disputes existence of these Ordinances, which are, admittedly, in force as on date. ( 5 ) FROM the papers, placed by the learned counsels for the petitioners before this Court relating to criminal proceedings initiated on the basis of First Information Reports against some Petitioners, it is evident that these cases are still pending at the stage of investigation even though about a year has elapsed. In others, criminal cases are pending before the concerned Judicial Magistrate. Proceedings relating to use of unfair means are likely to take long and for several years the students academic career shall hang in uncertainty. In others, criminal cases are pending before the concerned Judicial Magistrate. Proceedings relating to use of unfair means are likely to take long and for several years the students academic career shall hang in uncertainty. It is bound to lead to frustration and desperation in the young generation of the society besides the fact that loss and damage caused to a student by the delay in the decision of these matters cannot be compensated in any manner. Time lost is irretrievable and damage done is irreparable. ( 6 ) COURT takes judicial notice of the fact that Criminal proceedings will consume considerable time, particularly when there is no one to seriously prosecute/pursue these cases. Delay is bound to cause anxious times and after certain stage become unbearable. It is, therefore, imperative that concerned authorities must finalize unfair means cases at the earliest. A student should not be normally prevented from pursuing studies unless found guilty, as otherwise he is to suffer irreparably, particularly in a case where student is acquitted in future in criminal case because it shall mean to punish one even though one is not found guilty. ( 7 ) RESPONDENT Nos. 1, 2 and 4 of the leading case have filed two Counter Affidavits (one sworn by Govind Prasad, Assistant in Legal Department of Allahabad University) and another sworn by V. N. Seth, present Controller of Examinations, Allahabad University. ( 8 ) IN the two Counter Affidavits filed on behalf of the University, it is conceded by the University that after filing First Information Report it cannot and has not proceeded with the unfair means cases as copies are seized and taken into custody by respective Investigating Officers and consequently University is unable to discharge its statutory obligation to decide those matters under the Act, 1973. University expresses its helplessness and inability in the aforesaid circumstances and conceded that a practical problem has arisen because of pendency of Criminal proceedings under Act, 1998. University has, evidently, acted on the belief and assumption that lodging of First Information Report was unavoidable and imminent as soon as an examinee was charged on being found involved in a case of unfair means irrespective of the nature or category of the case as defined and categorised under the University Ordinances. University has, evidently, acted on the belief and assumption that lodging of First Information Report was unavoidable and imminent as soon as an examinee was charged on being found involved in a case of unfair means irrespective of the nature or category of the case as defined and categorised under the University Ordinances. ( 9 ) LEARNED counsel, appearing on both sides have expressed consensus on the point that due to pendency of criminal cases, educational institutions failed to decide cases of unfair means which has precipitated undue hardship to the students as well as to the educational institutions. ( 10 ) THE facts of the leading case of Santosh Singh (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 53637 of 1999), as are necessary for adjudication of these petitions, are noted below. ( 11 ) SANTOSH Singh was enrolled as regular student in LL. B Course during 1995-96. he appeared in the LL. B, I year Examination at the completion of academic session. When result was declared, he was shown failed in the paper of law of Torts and Easement. As per rules of the University, he was given admission in LL. B. II year subject to his clearing paper of law of Torts and Easement. It is stated in the petition that Petitioner appeared in LL. B. II year Examination, 1996-97 (held in the year 1999 ). However, petitioner appeared for the second time to clear his I year paper of law of Torts and Easement held in the year 1998. In the said examination, he was charged of using unfair means on 1/08/1999. Petitioner approached this Court by filing present Writ Petition under Article 226. Constitution of India. ( 12 ) SINCE Counter Affidavit was not coming and matter was being delayed, this Court vide order dated 21/12/1999 directed the University Authorities to permit the Petitioner provisionally to seek admission and allow to appear in LL. B. III Year Examination particularly in view of the fact that University had allowed the Petitioner to appear in II Year LL. B Examination provisionally and his result was also declared provisionally (Annexure-5 to the Writ Petition ). The said Petitioner had appeared in LL. B III Year Examination but his result has not been declared. ( 13 ) LEARNED counsels, before opening arguments, agreed that case may be decided on question of law only. Heard learned counsels for the parties at length. The said Petitioner had appeared in LL. B III Year Examination but his result has not been declared. ( 13 ) LEARNED counsels, before opening arguments, agreed that case may be decided on question of law only. Heard learned counsels for the parties at length. Petitioners seek to challenge vires of Act, 1998 on two grounds, namely,i. Provisions of Act, 1998 are ultra vires and violative of principles of natural justice (without specifying particular provisions of the Act, 1998);ii. Provisions of Act, 1998 are against the provisions of Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 particularly Chapter XXVIII of the ordinances of Allahabad University, (1987-88 Hand Book ). ( 14 ) LEARNED counsel for the Petitioner urged that the provisions of Act, 1998 are in direct clash with the Ordinance framed under Chapter XXVIII of the University Handbook 1987-88. Petitioners claim that the provisions of Act, 1973, Statute and Ordinance of the University are self-contained complete code on the subject and hence there is no need of Act, 1998. ( 15 ) THE argument of the learned counsel for the Petitioner has no merit inasmuch as the two Acts, namely U. P. Act, 1973 and U. P. Act 1998 operate in different fields. Act, 1973 deals with academic system including examination, being part and parcel of educational/academic course wherein concerned educational authorities are under statutory obligation to hold examinations in prescribed manner under law and to achieve solemn object to test real merit of an examinee. Educational authorities are also concerned with the discipline in the campus of an educational institution. Whereas the Act, 1998 defines certain acts as offence and provides for punishment-both imprisonment as well as fine. Act, 1998 embraces within its ambit all persons involved in the process, in any capacity whatsoever, including students, persons in Management, Officers, Employees of an Educational Institution, Invigilators, Superintendent, Paper Setters, Press, a member of public, etc. responsible for holding examination or otherwise. Persons guilty of committing breach of sanctity of examination including leakage of paper, etc. and/or disturbing law and order in and outside examination hall, etc. are liable to be prosecuted under Act, 1998. Act, 1973 and Ordinances framed under it, on the other hand, only deal with the conduct of student/examinee. It does not contain provisions for dealing with the persons other than students/ examinees. and/or disturbing law and order in and outside examination hall, etc. are liable to be prosecuted under Act, 1998. Act, 1973 and Ordinances framed under it, on the other hand, only deal with the conduct of student/examinee. It does not contain provisions for dealing with the persons other than students/ examinees. ( 16 ) PETITIONERS then seek to challenge Act, 1998 on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. Vires of an act cannot be successfully challenged on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. An act is bought into effect through procedure, contemplated under law, for legislative enactment. Learned counsel for the Petitioners failed to substantiate his argument cited no decision and abandoned their argument on the point. ( 17 ) LEARNED Advocate General, Shri R. P. Goel, appearing on behalf of the State of U. P. , with reference to the relevant provisions of the Constitution of India, submitted that both the Acts, namely U. P. Act No. 10 of 1973 (U. P. State Universities Act, 1973) and U. P. Act No. 13 of 1998 have been enacted by the Legislature having competence to legislate on the concerned subject and hence the vires of the Act cannot be successfully assailed. ( 18 ) THE learned Advocate General in support of his submissions, placed reliance on the case of State of Bihar v. Bihar Distillery Limited (1997) 2 SCC 453 (Pr. 17) : ( AIR 1997 SC 1511 (Para 18)) wherein Apex Court observed. "the Court should not approach the enactment with a view to pick holes or to search for defects of drafting, much less inexactitude of language employed. Indeed, any such defects of drafting should be ironed out as part of the attempt to sustain the validity/ constitutionality of the enactment. After all, an Act made by the legislature represents the will of the people and that cannot be lightly interfered with. The unconstitutionality must be plainly and clearly established before an enactment is declared as void. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " ( 19 ) IN paragraph 20 of the same judgment Supreme Court further observed that a Judge ". . . . . . . . The unconstitutionality must be plainly and clearly established before an enactment is declared as void. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " ( 19 ) IN paragraph 20 of the same judgment Supreme Court further observed that a Judge ". . . . . . . . must set to work on the constructive task of finding the intention of the Parliament, and he must do this not only from the language of the statute, but also from a consideration of the social conditions which gave rise to it and of the mischief which it was passed to remedy, and then he must supplement the written so as to give force and life to the intention of the legislature; relying upon the ratio laid down in the case of Heydon case, (1584) 3 Co Rep 7a. ( 20 ) LEARNED Advocate General, argued that Act, 1998 was enacted by the Legislature with an object to improve institutional atmosphere to improve examination system and to ensure that examinations are held in fair manner so as to achieve desired object of holding an examination which is possible only by preventing use of unfair means and to counter check planned maneavouring and/or massing copy with the help of various agencies like management of the institutions, parents and guardians, touts and staff employed to conduct examination at certain examination centers including persons responsible to maintain law and order at the examination place during relevant period. ( 21 ) THE learned Advocate General candidly admitted that experience of the Act, 1998 has been though it had yielded some results because of its being deterrent in nature, but by taking action under Act, 1998, students generally of tender age are made to suffer, both mentally and socially; many a times for no fault of theirs simply because decision in cases of unfair means is delayed for no fault of the University and/or Colleges. After filing First Information Reports under Act, 1998, authorities responsible for holding examination feel content and assume that they are helpless and cannot proceed in the matter under Act, 1973; and the relevant ordinances/ rules of the concerned Universities or examining body. It is suggested that educational institutions can procure photostat/xeroxed copies of the relevant material, i. e. of answer books of the students, etc. It is suggested that educational institutions can procure photostat/xeroxed copies of the relevant material, i. e. of answer books of the students, etc. before handing them over to investigating Agency before filing First Information Report to ensure that examining body is not handicapped in dealing with the cases of unfair means. ( 22 ) SHRI A. B. L. Gaur, appearing for the University, referred to the averments made in the two Counter Affidavits of the University and submitted that University was helpless in the aforementioned circumstances e. g. non availability of original answer books. He conceded that University cannot decide unfair means cases promptly so long as criminal proceedings (investigation and trial) remain pending. He submitted that as soon as student is charged of using unfair means, invariably First Information Report is being lodged by some one in the institution. As soon as the Investigating Officer takes answer books in his custody, examining body is only a mute spectator. ( 23 ) COUNSEL for the University endeavoured to justify immediate filing of First Information Report on a student/examinee being charged of using unfair means on the ground that in case First Information Report was not lodged promptly and forthwith (instantaneously) the prosecution case was liable to be weakened on the ground of delayed first Information Report. In the end of arguments, he conceded that if delay in filing First Information Report is reasonable and duly explained, prosecution cannot be said to be prejudiced on this score. He referred to the provisions of S. 154 and 468. Code of Criminal Procedure, which provide for limitation in respect of certain criminal offences within which a Court should take cognizance of the same. He submits that under S. 488 (2) (b) and (c) Code of Criminal Procedure, period of limitation is one year, and in some case it is three years. ( 24 ) THE University claims that as soon as original answer books are available, the University shall not hesitate in deciding cases of unfair means as contemplated under relevant Ordinances Chapter XXVIII of the University Allahabad Calendar, 1987-88. He also referred to and place before this Court, minutes of the Meting of the Vice Chancellors of the Universities in the State of U. P. (held under the Chairmanship of the Chancellor/governor of U. P. , on 16/07/2000 ). Decision on Item No. 6 is relevant. He also referred to and place before this Court, minutes of the Meting of the Vice Chancellors of the Universities in the State of U. P. (held under the Chairmanship of the Chancellor/governor of U. P. , on 16/07/2000 ). Decision on Item No. 6 is relevant. The minutes show that this body decided that First Information Report was not required to be lodged in all the matters of alleged use of unfair means with reference to Act, 1998. The meeting further decided to take action against students under Act, 1998 where student was charged of using arms and force i. e. an offence in criminal jurisprudence and action against examinee contemplated under the Act, 1973 and Ordinances framed thereunder of the concerned University was not sufficient. ( 25 ) THE counsel for the University submitted that no member of teaching staff (Professor, Reader, Lecturer) member of non-teaching staff or other responsible officer of the University/academic institution is willing to became complainant to lodge First Information Report no employee is willing to attend Courts due to embarrassment and harassment in Court, besides exposing to enmity with the student apart from ignoring- neglecting academic duties. ( 26 ) A written note by Sri Amar Nath Seth, Controller of Examinations, University of Allahabad was placed before the Court. The relevant experts of the said note reads :"it would seem to be appropriate if the University is permitted to complete its proceedings against each Examine apprehended for use the of unfair means under its own Ordinances prior to any proceedings under the said Act in order to ensure that only such Examinee are subject to criminal proceedings under the said Act as are found to be guilty by the University of the offence of unfair means and of violence, disruption during examination causing impersonation on their behalf in the University Examinations and intimidation against staff/other examinee before and after the examination whether inside or outside the Examination Hall. The University is committed to the prevention of UFM and related offences in the Examinations and the creation of a salutary environment in the University as well as deterrence to the menace of unfair means, but at the same time is keen to ensure that the Examinees are treated equitably and fairly and are not subjected to unnecessary vexatious situations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " ( 27 ) THE Minutes of the Vice Chancellors Meeting as well as written note of the Authorised Controller of Examinations referred to above are directed to be retained as part of the record of this case. ( 28 ) MALADY of delay in deciding cases of unfair means is due to sheer misapprehension on the part of the University. There was general agreement that in the present circumstances, the best course is to ensure that cases of unfair means are decided without waiting for decision of criminal proceedings. ( 29 ) IN order to appreciate, whether the two enactments can work independently and in harmony, it is useful to refer to the provisions of the two Acts in question. ( 30 ) RELEVANT provisions of U. P. State Universities Act, 1973 and relevant ordinances of the University are noted below. ( 31 ) SECTION 9 of Act, 1973 defines officers of the University. Its Clause (ff) says controller of Examinations to be appointed as an officer of the University. S. 16 (1) of the Act, lays down that Controller of Examinations shall be whole time officer of the University. Controller of Examinations, according to S. 16 (a) (4) shall be responsible for due custody of the records pertaining to his work, to perform such duties as may be prescribed by Statute, by the Executive Counsel or Vice Chancellor. Section 16 (a) (5) lays down that Controller of Examinations shall have administrative control over the employees working under him and shall have all the powers in this regard. According to S. 16 (a) (6), subject to the superintendence of the Examination Committee, he has to conduct examination. S. 19 of the said Act enumerates Authorities of the University and examinations Committee as one of the authorities of the University. S. 29 deals with Examinations Committee and provides for its composition as well as its duties. According to S. 16 (a) (6), subject to the superintendence of the Examination Committee, he has to conduct examination. S. 19 of the said Act enumerates Authorities of the University and examinations Committee as one of the authorities of the University. S. 29 deals with Examinations Committee and provides for its composition as well as its duties. S. 29 (2) provides that it shall supervise generally all examinations of the University, including moderation, tabulation and perform other functions -- to appoint examiners and moderators and, if necessary, to remove them; to review from time to time the results of University examinations and submission of reports thereon to the Academic Council and to scrutinize the list of examiners proposed by the Board of studies, finalise the same and declare the result of the University. S. 29 (3) further lays down that examination Committee may appoint such number of sub-committee as it thinks fit, and in particular may delegate to any one or more persons or sub-committees the power to deal with and decide cases relating to the use of unfair means by the examiners. ( 32 ) CHAPTER XXVIII of the Ordinance in the Calendar of the University of Allahabad, 1987-88 is titled ordinance ON THE USE OF UNFAIR MEANS AND CAUSING DISTURBANCE IN THE EXAMINATION and for convenience reproduced below :1. UNFAIR MEANS--1. 1 Candidates found using or attempting, aiding, abetting or instigate to use unfair means in the examinations of University of Allahabad shall be punished. 1. 2 Definitions : (A) Unfair means :- a candidate shall be deemed to have used "unfair means" if the candidate is in possession of unauthorised material or if he has transcribed any part or the whole of the unauthorized material or if he intimidates or threatens or manhandles or uses violence against any invigilator or person on duty in the examination or if he leaves the examination hall without surrendering his examination script to an invigilator or if he is found communicating with other examinees or any one else inside or outside the examination hall. (B) Possession of unauthorised material :-"possession of unauthorised material" by a candidate shall mean having any unauthorised material on his person or desk or chair or table or at any place within reach in the examination hall and its environment or having such material on him in the urinal toilet or the passage thereto or there from at any time from the commencement of the examination till its end. (C) Unauthorised material :- "unauthorised material" shall mean any material whatsoever, related to the subject of the examination, printed, types, written or otherwise, on cloth, wood or other material, in any language or in the form of a chart, diagram, map or drawing. (D) A candidate found in possession :- "a candidate found in possession" shall mean a candidate reported in writing as having found in possession of unauthorised material by the Invigilator or Head Invigilator or by a teacher or official authorised in this behalf even if the unauthorised material is not produced as evidence because of its being reported as swallowed or otherwise destroyed or snatched away or otherwise taken away by the candidate or by any other person acting on his behalf provided that such report is submitted to the Registrar, Allahabad University, or an officer deputed for the purpose on his behalf within three hours or the end of the examination concerned after authentication by the Head Invigilator concerned (along with the unauthorised material found, if available as evidence.) (E) Material related to the subject of examination:-"material related to the subject of the examination" shall if the material is produced as evidence, mean any material certified as related to the subject of the examination by a teacher of the subject. If the material is not produced as evidence for any of the reasons referred to in (D) above, the presumption shall be that the material did relate to the subject of the examination. 1. 3 A candidate found using unfair means in an examination shall be serve with a notice therefore in the examination hall itself and, if he refused to accept or avoids or escapes personal receipt of such notice shall be sent to him by Registered Post within seven days of the incident. The candidate shall be required to submit his reply to the notice within 10 days of the issue of such notice. The candidate shall be required to submit his reply to the notice within 10 days of the issue of such notice. If no reply is received within this period, it would be presumed that the candidate has nothing to state in his defence. 1. 4 Punishment prescribed in these Ordinances (No. 1. 1 to 1. 6) shall be awarded by a Committee of not less than five teachers appointed by the Examinations Committee or by the 1 Vice Chancellor acting on behalf of the former. The quorum of this Committee shall be three. 1. 5 The Committee referred to in Ordinance 1. 4 above shall consider :a) the report, if any, about the candidates having been found in possession of unauthorised material;b) the reply of the candidate, if any, to the notice; c) the report of the examiner concerned, if any, regarding the transcription or non-transcription of the unauthorised material of which the candidate was found in possession;d) any other report of intimidation, threat, manhandling or violence received in connection with the conduct of the examination by any person on duty of the University ande) any other material. 1. 6 The Committee referred to in Ordinance 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 satisfy itself regarding the facts of the matter. A. (i) For possession of unauthorised material, or (ii) For leaving the examination hall without surrendering the examination script to an invigilator, or (iii) For communicating with other examinees 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 invigilator 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) subsequent examinations of the next academic session. 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. 2. CAUSING DISTURBANCES IN EXAMINATION--2. 1 Students causing disturbances in examinations of Allahabad University shall be punished. 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. 2. CAUSING DISTURBANCES IN EXAMINATION--2. 1 Students causing disturbances in examinations of Allahabad University shall be punished. 2. 2 Definitions : (A) "students" shall mean students of Allahabad University or any of the Associated Colleges or of the constituent College. (B) "causing disturbances" shall means intimidating or threatening or manhandling or using violence or show of force in any form against examinee or examinees or invigilator or person on duty in the examination hall or shouting or breaking furniture or toppling furniture or snatching answer-books or tearing answer books or throwing stones or other objects or causing commotion in any manner or inciting or otherwise persuading candidates to leave or walk out from the examination hall or creating or contributing to situations leading to violence or disruption or obstruction to smooth functioning of the examination. (C) "proctor" shall mean the Proctor of the University or the Proctor of an Associated college or constituent College. 2. 3 On the receipt of a complaint against a student or students causing disturbances, the matter shall be referred to the Proctor for necessary action. 2. 4 The Proctor shall consider the complaint against the student or student charged with causing disturbances in examinations and his or their reply or replies, if any and any other relevant material. He shall award the following punishments after placing on record that he has examined all the relevant documents (to be listed) and that he has satisfied himself regarding the facts of the matter : (A) For causing disturbances leading to or involving violence or leading to a walk out by candidates or disruption of examination. Rustication from the University for a period which may extend to 5 years but shall not be less than one year. (B) For causing disturbances in examinations but not involving physical violence and not leading to a walk out or disruption in the examination:rustication from the University for a period, which may extend to 2 years but shall not be less than one year. ( 33 ) EXPRESSION unfair means, "a candidate in possession" "material related to the subject of examination," etc. defined under Ordinance 1. 2 Ordinance 1. ( 33 ) EXPRESSION unfair means, "a candidate in possession" "material related to the subject of examination," etc. defined under Ordinance 1. 2 Ordinance 1. 3 lays down procedure to adopted in the cases of unfair means and requires giving of notice in the Examination Hall. Ordinance 1. conceives of awarding punishments by a committee of not less than five teachers appointed by the Examination Committee or by the Vice Chancellor. Ordinance 1. 5 mandates aforesaid committee to consider the report received by the concerned persons/officials conducting examination, if any, about the candidate having been found in possession of unauthorized material, the reply of the candidate, if any, report of the examiner concerned, if any, and any other report of intimidation, threat, manhandling or violence received in connection with the conduct of the examination by any person on duty of the University. ( 34 ) ORDINANCE 1. 6 says that, Committee. . . . . . shall award 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 matter. Ordinance 1. 6 makes it clear that unless the matter reached the stage of Ordinance 1. 6, University authorities can not hold student guilty and, therefore, could not punish a student for being guilty of any act-which may be an offence charges under Chapter XXVIII of the Ordinances. ( 35 ) CLAUSE (i), (ii) and (iii) of Ordinance 1. 6-A, deals with cases referrable to a student (a) found in possession of unauthorized material, or (b) a student leaving the examination hall without surrendering the examination script to an invigilator, or (c) a student communicating with other examinees or any one else inside or outside the examination hall. It provides for cancellation of the examination in question. ( 36 ) ORDINANCE 1. 6 B. (i) refers to cases where a student is found transcribing any part or whole of unauthorized material found in his possession indulging in use of unfair means. Ordinance 1. 6 B. (ii) refers to the cases where an examinee is charged of intimidating or threatening an invigilator and or person on duty in the examination. ( 37 ) ORDINANCE 1. 6-C. refers to the cases of manhandling or using violence against invigilator or person on duty in the examination. Ordinance 1. 6 B. (ii) refers to the cases where an examinee is charged of intimidating or threatening an invigilator and or person on duty in the examination. ( 37 ) ORDINANCE 1. 6-C. refers to the cases of manhandling or using violence against invigilator or person on duty in the examination. In this category matter is to be reported after scrutiny by Examination Committee to the Proctor for necessary action. ( 38 ) ORDINANCE 16 (C) of Chapter XXVIII alone require cases to be forwarded to the proctor for necessary action. It is, therefore, clear that matter is not to be referred to Proctor if case is covered under Ordinance 1. 6-A and 1. 6-B (i ). Similarly, under Ordinance 2 of Chapter XXVIII a student is exposed to punishment if he is charged and found guilty of causing disturbance in examination. Ordinance 2. 3 requires matter to be referred to the Proctor. Ordinance 2. 4 entitles University authority to rusticate a student. Perusal of above Ordinances deal with and takes cognizance of an act of a student only and do not provide for dealing with other erring persons, if any, who may be guilty of breaching/violating sanctity and norms of holding valid examination. ( 39 ) ORDINANCE 1. 4 and 1. 6 of Chapter XXVIII of the Calendar lays down that the cases of unfair means and quantum of punishment is to be determined by Examination Committee. In the category of cases where there is alleged use of unfair means coupled with act of manhandling or using violence in examination, additional punishment by way of disciplinary action is contemplated under Ordinance 2. 4, to be taken by the Proctor of the University. ( 40 ) ORDINANCES referred to above, framed under U. P. State University Act, 1973, deal with cases of unfair means to the extent it refers to student/examinee only. ( 41 ) A student, who enjoys two distinct status, has dual obligation-one as student, second, as citizen. He must respect law and expected not to commit offence or an act of moral turpitude ask citizen and also to abide by rules, Regulations and the Act governing academic system. ( 42 ) A bare reading of Act, 1973 and the Ordinances, framed thereunder show that unless concerned authority hold an enquiry, reached the stage of Ordinance 1. He must respect law and expected not to commit offence or an act of moral turpitude ask citizen and also to abide by rules, Regulations and the Act governing academic system. ( 42 ) A bare reading of Act, 1973 and the Ordinances, framed thereunder show that unless concerned authority hold an enquiry, reached the stage of Ordinance 1. 6 and hold an examinee guilty and liable to be punished for the charges contemplated under aforesaid Ordinance, it cannot come to the conclusion that an offence is committed within the meaning of Act, 1998. So long, as the Examination Committee has not dealt with the matter, it cannot be said to be satisfied of essential ingredients of the offence, which is essential before filing a First Information Report. ( 43 ) NOW reference be made to S. 2 to 12 of Act, 1998 "2. Definitions".- In this Act- (a) "examination centre" means any institution or part thereof or any other place fixed for the holding of a public examination and includes the entire premises attached thereto; (b) "examinee" means a person who has been granted permission to appear in a public examination and includes a person authorised to act as scribe on this behalf; (c) "public examination" means an examination specified in the Schedule, conducted for the awarding or granting of any degree, diploma, certificate or any other academic distinction to a person who is lawfully declared to have been successful at such examination; (d) "unfair means" in relation to an examinee while answering question in a public examination means the unauthorised help from any person directly or indirectly, or from any material, written, recorded, copies or printed in any form whatsoever, or the use of any unauthorised telephonic, wireless or electronic or other instrument or gadget. 3. Prohibition of the use of unfair means.- No examine shall use unfair means at any public examination. 4. Unauthorised possession and disclosure of question paper. 3. Prohibition of the use of unfair means.- No examine shall use unfair means at any public examination. 4. Unauthorised possession and disclosure of question paper. No person, who is not lawfully authorised or permitted by virtue of his duties so to do shall, before the time fixed for distribution of question papers to examinee at a public examination,- (a) Procure or attempt to procure or possess, such question paper or any portion or a copy thereof; or (b) impart, or offer to impart, information which he knows or has reason to believe, to be related to, or derived from, or to have a bearing upon such question paper. 5. Prevention of leakage by person entrusted with examination work- No person, who is entrusted with any work pertaining to public examination shall, except where he is permitted by virtue of his duties so to do, directly or indirectly divulge or cause to be divulged or make known to any other person any information or part thereof which has come to his knowledge by virtue of the work being so entrusted to him. 6. Prohibition on entry into a Examination Centre.- No person, who is not entrusted with any work pertaining to public examination, or who is not an examinee shall during the continuance of public examination enter into an examination centre or having entered into such centre remain there or provide any help or assistance to an examinee in using unfair means in the public examination. 7. No person on the management, etc. , shall assist an examinee.- No person, who is on the management or on the staff of an institution which is being used for the holding of a public examination, or who is entrusted with any work pertaining to public examination, shall provide any help or assistance to an examinee in using unfair means in the public examination. 8. No place other than examination centre shall be used for public examination.- No person shall use or cause to be used any place, other than the examination centre, for the purposes of holding of public examination. 9. Penalty for use of unfair means.- Whoever, contravenes or attempts to contravene or abets the contravention of the provisions of Section 3 shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees or with both. 10. 9. Penalty for use of unfair means.- Whoever, contravenes or attempts to contravene or abets the contravention of the provisions of Section 3 shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees or with both. 10. Penalty for leakage.- Whoever, contravenes or attempts to contravene or abets contravention of the provisions of Section 4 or Section 5 or Section 6 or Section 7 or Section 8, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees or with both. 11. Penalty for offence with preparation to cause hurt, etc.- Whoever, commits an offence punishable under Section 9 or Section 10 having made preparation for, causing death of any person or causing huart to any persons or assaulting any person or for wrongfully restraining any person or for putting any person in fear of death or hurt or assault or wrongful restraint shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees or with both. 12. Procedure.- (1) An offence punishable under Section 9 shall be cognizable and bailable. (2) An offences punishable under Section 10 or Section 11 shall be cognizable and non-bailable. (3) All offence punishable under this Act shall be tried summarily by a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class and the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 262, Section 263, Section 264 and Section 265 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 shall mutatis mutandis apply to such summary trial. " ( 44 ) SECTION 3 of the said Act deals exclusively with the matter of using unfair means by an examinee in a public examination. It does not deal or refer to or contemplates any person other than an examinee. Section 4 of the said Act, however, provides who is not in lawful possession. Sections 5, 6,7 and 8 of the said Act do not refer to an examination. ( 45 ) THE above provisions clearly show that legislature had sought to achieve a very solemn object while enacting Act, 1988. Section 4 of the said Act, however, provides who is not in lawful possession. Sections 5, 6,7 and 8 of the said Act do not refer to an examination. ( 45 ) THE above provisions clearly show that legislature had sought to achieve a very solemn object while enacting Act, 1988. It refers to an examinee in public examination as well as any other person who may be found indulging in an act which may frustrate the sanctity of examination. An act aimed to frustrate the said object has been defined as "offence" and made punishable. ( 46 ) SECTIONS 9, 10 and 11 provide for different penalties for different offences contemplated under the said Act. Section 12 talks of procedure. ( 47 ) THERE is no difficulty in giving effect to the provisions of Sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 of Act, 1998 inasmuch as First Information Report can be lodged by any one from the public including a person responsible to hold public examination (as defined in the said Act) immediately on coming to know of an offence having been committed in breach of the provisions of the said act. A complainant is not required to ascertain and ensure responsibility of any one before lodging First Information Report for an offence, covered under these provisions of Act, 1998. ( 48 ) HOWEVER, in case of an examinee under Sections 3 and 4 of Act, 1998, it will be seen that no First Information Report can be lodged unless educational authority comes to the conclusion that student is guilty of using unfair means or of in discipline, misbehaviour and violence in the campus, which it can do only after holding an enquiry under its relevant Rules. The only competent person to lodge First Information Report, in the case of the Respondent University is controller of Examination on behalf of the Examination Committee or the Registrar on behalf of the University. ( 49 ) FROM the above, it transpires that it is not at all necessary for a College/university to lodge First Information Report merely on receipt of a complaint against a student only on suspicion of using unfair means. It is within legal competence of an educational institution to deal with a case of use of unfair means and, till such a case is decided against a student, there shall be no occasion to file First Information Report. It is within legal competence of an educational institution to deal with a case of use of unfair means and, till such a case is decided against a student, there shall be no occasion to file First Information Report. Where an examinee is not charged of, threat, intimidation, manhandling, violence, or causing disturbance in an examination, etc. , which inhere in themselves penal consequences being criminal offences as defined under Indian Penal Code, lodging of First Information Report is not warranted. ( 50 ) NORMALLY, cases of unfair means must be decided on priority basis within shortest possible span and criminal proceedings, against student, be initiated only thereafter. If deemed appropriate and necessary a First Information Report may be lodged instantaneously but after conscious exercise of the authority vested in the concerned authorities. Time consumed in deciding cases of unfair means at the institutional level may be ignored if it is justified on record inasmuch as it will not be taken as unexplained/unavoidable delay because till then an authority cannot be said to be sure of action in question being an offence. . ( 51 ) NO provision or precedent has been brought to my notice by the Respondents which require filing of First Information Report as son as one is allegedly charged of an offence. Concerned examining authority, without even waiting for holding requisite enquiry to ascertain whether a student is actually guilty of using unfair means or any offence as contemplated under relevant Ordinance under Act, 1973 or Act, 1998, cannot justify its act of filing First Information Report. As stated above, it may be justified, if an examinee is allegedly charged of committing a criminal act like manhandling and violence, intimidation etc. but in that case Answer Book normally is not at all required to be seized by an Investigating Agency, and if it is at all required the same can be summoned from the University which is an independent authority supposed to act independently. ( 52 ) THE suggestion made by learned Advocate General that Photostat copies may be obtained before lodging First Information Report is good, may not be, practicable as it is likely to lead to various complications by exposing answer-books to tampering and otherwise also examination Committee may be handicapped in absence of original script. In many cases of use of unfair means, minute details shade or ink, condition of answer book etc. In many cases of use of unfair means, minute details shade or ink, condition of answer book etc. may be relevant, which may not be possible to have from photocopy. Again to allow copies to be transmitted to the University/colleges/examining Institution and then again to be transmitted back to investigating Officer/magistrate, risk and possible danger of tampering, etc. cannot be ruled out. ( 53 ) THE learned Counsel for the University referred to the case of Km. Poonam Awasthi v. State of U. P. , 2000 All WC 1420. The said Division Bench decision of this Court in effect supports the view taken by this Bench. ( 54 ) IN the case of Ashish Malaviya v. Vice-Chancellor, Purvanchal University, Jaunpur Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2017 of 1999 decided on 17/12/1999 learned single Judge observed :"the University has not yet finalised the proceedings for cancellation of result on the ground that criminal case is pending against the petitioner in the Magistrates Court. Cancelling of the result of a student is within the jurisdiction of the University and to punish any one for public offence is in the jurisdiction of a Court. The standard of proof is entirely different. The pendency of one of does not debar for concluding the other. In view of this and for the fact that criminal case take long time, which may spoil the career of the student, it is expedient in the interest of justice that University may finally conclude the proceeding against the petitioner regarding using unfair means. The University is directed to decide this within three week after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and in case his record is submitted in any Court, the University may obtain the same from that Court. Needless to add in case the petitioner is successful then this result would be declared and he will be given admission according to his merit. "view taken by me is in conformity with the above, though there is variance in approach. ( 55 ) IN view of the above discussion, it is held :- (1) In the matter of unfair means.-WHERE there is no charge of committing criminal act (e. g. intimidation, manhandling, violence, disturbing examination, threat, etc. ). First Information Report need not be lodged simultaneously or at once on and examinee being allegedly caught and charged of using unfair means. ). First Information Report need not be lodged simultaneously or at once on and examinee being allegedly caught and charged of using unfair means. It can be filed after concerned authority, who holds enquiry (as may be provided under relevant Act, Statutes, Ordinance, Regulations, or appropriate law dealing with conduct of an examination and comes to the conclusion that such student is guilty of any of the offences contemplated under Act, 1998; (2) Examining Body is under a statutory obligation to decide a case of use of unfair means promptly and expeditiously so that future opportunities are not lost to the examinee and is saved from irreparable loss. (3) First Information Report may be lodged, if deemed appropriate after unfair means case is decided. If the concerned authority comes to the conclusion that a student is not guilty of an offence under Act, 1988, it shall not be obliged to lodge First Information Report. If examinee is found guilty after enquiry of using unfair means (like Departmental enquiry) a First Information Report may be lodged and the time consumed in holding institutional enquiries will not be treated delay in filing First Information Report considering the fact that matter relates to a large number of students/examinees in the State of U. P. (I) General mandamus is issued (i) to concerned Investigating Agency/authorities and Magistrates, in the State of U. P. to drop Criminal proceedings, where there is no charge of manhandling, violence, intimidation and causing disturbance in the examination and consign initiated on the basis of First Information Reports lodged under U. P. Act, 1998 as pre-mature and return original Answer Books and related record, if any, to the concerned authorities within two weeks of receipt of this order; (II) to Examining Authority to decide unfair means cases on merit within two months of receipt of Answer Books, in accordance with law provided examinee in question, co-operates. If examinee avoid the proceeding authority may decide cases in absentia of the examinee and declare the result and communicate it to the concerned examine by Registered post. (III) Criminal Proceedings pending at any stage on the basis of First Information Repot other than the category covered by aforementioned clause (I) and (II) shall be continued ignoring this Judgment in all respects. (III) Criminal Proceedings pending at any stage on the basis of First Information Repot other than the category covered by aforementioned clause (I) and (II) shall be continued ignoring this Judgment in all respects. (IV) No observation made in this judgment shall prejudice either side and future proceedings shall be decided by the concerned authority exercising unfettered discretion on the basis of record before them and according to law. Petition allowed. .