ORDER : 1. Oliver Mendell Holmes an eminent American Judge once spoke “life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience.” It has been stated time and again that the law does not flow on the parth of rigid and rigorous logic bereft of life but engulfs many facets of life in its very quintessence. The Courts of law have a significant and sacrosanct duty to enforce law but simultaneously are also aware of the serviceability of the institution which epitomises the majesty of law. In this context, I may profitably quote few lines from Lord Smionds in Shaw vs. Director of Public Prosecutions, (1961) 2 All ER 446: “I entertain no doubt that there remains in the Courts of law a residual power to enforce the supreme and fundamental purpose of the law, to conserve not only the safety and order but also the moral welfare of the State.” To elaborate the aforesaid prefatory note I recall a few memorable lines from Professor Harry Jones who stated thus:- “There are many mansions in the house of jurisprudence, and I would not belittle anyone's perspective on law in society, provided only that he does not insist that his is the only perspective that gives a true and meaningful view of ultimate legal reality.” 2. I have referred to the aforesaid because Mr. N.S. Kale, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent University and its functionaries submitted that in the matter of administration of the University the Vice-Chancellor subject to the provisions of the Statute has the final say and unless the decision is totally arbitrary, capricious, whimsical or fanciful or unsupported by any sense of reason, this Court should be loathe to interfere. The learned senior counsel also highlighted that if the Vice-Chancellor is not granted free play in the joints, borrowing the concept from the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Tata Cellular vs. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 11 , there will be anarchy in the University and the Court of law does not permit anarchy to prevail in any institution, more so, in an academic institution. He also emphasised that this Court should not exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction and equitable jurisdiction to interfere in the affairs of the University as that would cripple the discipline in the academic atmosphere and that would amount to creation of stiffness in the joints. To put it differently Mr. Kale, learned senior counsel has contended that in case of interference the institution would develop a neuro-immunological deficiency called ankylosis. The question that is required to be answered is whether the submission of Mr. Kale manifest ultimate legal reality or there is something more to it? 3. Now to the essential facts of the case. The three petitioners have visited this Court assailing the action of the respondent No. 2 whereby he had passed the order for closing the hostel called “Devendra Hostel” after getting the inmates evicted. It is asseverated in the petition that the petitioner No. 1 is a student of M.Sc. (Physics), IIIrd Semester and he has been staying in the hostel from the date of the joining his studies in the University. It is setforth that he hails from Himachal Pradesh and has been prosecuting his studies in Rani Durgavati Vishwavidyalaya. The petitioner no. 2 is a student of M.Sc. of the 1st Semester. He belongs to Manipur State and has taken admission in the University. The petitioner No. 3 is in the IVth Semester of M.Sc. (Physics). All of them have been staying in the hostel in question. It is averred in the petition that the University commenced the academic session from 1-7-2000. Some of the students along with petitioners submitted their forms for renewal of their admission in the hostel for the academic session 2000-2001 after getting the same forwarded by the Heads of the concerned departments. The Warden of the Hostel permitted them to deposit their hostel rent and fees but the respondent No. 3 refused to give the permission on the ground that Vice-Chancellor/respondent No. 2 has directed not to accept the same. When the matter stood thus on 1-9-2000 the inmates of the hostel were evicted by the law and order enforcing agency. It is pleaded in the writ petition that no show cause notice was issued to the petitioners and a mass eviction was directed to be undertaken on the ground that the administration of the hostel has become uncontrolable. When the matter stood thus on 1-9-2000 the inmates of the hostel were evicted by the law and order enforcing agency. It is pleaded in the writ petition that no show cause notice was issued to the petitioners and a mass eviction was directed to be undertaken on the ground that the administration of the hostel has become uncontrolable. It is set forth that the Vice-Chancellor has exercised the power without the approval of the Executive Council though the same has to be done in accordance with the provisions enshrined with the M.P. Vishwa Vidhyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). It is also urged in the petition that there has been violation of the principles of natural justice in evicting the petitioners as no opportunity of hearing was ever afforded to them. It has also been contended that such an action by the University authorities guillotines the cherished ideal as enshrined under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. A reference has been made to an order dated 23-6-1995 passed in W.P. No. 1768/1995 to highlight that some guidelines were issued at one point of time by this Court for the purpose of admission into the College hostel. 4. After narring the facts asserted in the writ petition I would have ordinarily proceeded to complete the chronology by referring to the return filed by the University but, a significant but, some interim orders were passed by this Court the prior to filing of the return and there is need, may, necessity to incorporate them in the present order for better appreciation of the factual scenario. On 14-9-2000 while issuing notice this Court had directed the Registrar of the University to remain personally present on 18-9-2000. On 18-9-2000 this Court passed the following order:- “Petitions are personally present. As directed by order dated 14-9-2000 the Registrar, the respondent No. 1, is personally present, Dr. R.B. Dubey the Officer-in-charge of the case, is also present. It is submitted by the registrar as well as by the Officer-in-charge of the case that the students were asked to vacate the hostel as the law and order situation had cropped up due to some unwanted elements in the hostel. At this juncture it is submitted by the petitioners that they are ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions to be imposed by the administration. At this juncture it is submitted by the petitioners that they are ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions to be imposed by the administration. They are also prepared to give necessary undertaking before the Registrar, Rani Durgawati Vishwavidyalaya, Jabalpur in accordance with the terms put-forth by him. In view of the aforesaid submission, let a draft undertaking be filed by the Registrar tomorrow i.e. 19-9-2000. As the Registrar and the officer-in-charge are apprehensive of the law and order situation, it is desirable that Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur should co-operate in the matter. Accordingly it is directed that the S.P. Jabalpur shall remain personally present at 10.30 a.m. tomorrow. Let a copy of this order be served on him by the Registry of this Court in course of the day.” 5. As per the aforesaid direction the Registrar was required to file a draft undertaking to be given by the petitioners herein. The matter was taken up on 19-9-2000. The Registrar of the University filed a set of revised Rules for admission to the University hostel. On concession of both the parties, this Court passed the following order:- “Petitioners are personally present. As directed the Registrar of the University and the Officer-in-charge are also present. Shri Surendra Pandey, Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur is present. 2. The Registrar has filed a set of revised rules for admission to the University Hostel. The petitioners have perused the rules. On concession of both the parties the following conditions are enumerated to be followed at the time of admission and continuance in the hostel:- (i) Regular students of the University Teaching Departments alone shall be admitted to the Hostel. A character and conduct certificate from the Head of the Department last attended shall be attached with the application. (ii) Students will be admitted to the Hostel by the Warden on the recommendation of the Head of the Department and Hostel Admission Committee duly constituted by the Vice-Chancellor. (iii) Students who have been admitted shall not be allowed to reside elsewhere except with the written permission of the Warden. (iv) Residents hosteler who fail in their examination or do not appear without sufficient cause shall not be re-admitted to the Hostel. (v) The students whose parents or guardians are living in the Jabalpur City shall not be admitted to the Hostel. (iv) Residents hosteler who fail in their examination or do not appear without sufficient cause shall not be re-admitted to the Hostel. (v) The students whose parents or guardians are living in the Jabalpur City shall not be admitted to the Hostel. (vi) Resident students of the Hostel shall have to show their fee receipts and Identity Card to the Superintendent whenever it is required. (vii) Each student must occupy the rooms allotted to him. (viii) Every resident student shall be responsible for the cleanliness and good order of his room. (ix) The resident shall be held responsible for any damage to the Hostel property. (x) If any resident leaves hostel and fails to handover the furniture and other goods in good order, will be liable for punishment and compensation. (xi) Residents shall be responsible for the loss of or damage to the electricals and other fittings in their rooms. (xii) In case where the rooms are found locked or left empty with the lights and fans switched on, a fine upto Rs. 10/- per day will be imposed. (xiii) All cases of illness shall be reported to the Superintendent at once, who shall seek necessary instructions from the Warden for necessary action. (xiv) No meeting shall be held in the hall or rooms of the Hostel without proper prior permission of the Warden in writing. (xv) The Warden shall have the power to impose a fine upto the extent of Rs. 500/- on a student or to expel him from the Hostel or both for any infringement of any rule. (xvi) A student expelled from any other hostel shall not be admitted to the University Hostel. (xvii) A student once expelled from the Hostel shall not be re-admitted to the Hostel. (xviii) Any complaint by the Hostel students first be made to the Superintendent/Warden for necessary action. (xix) The duration for which the student will be permitted every year in the beginning of session, will be according to the schedule given below:- (a) Post graduate Two years. (b) B.A. LL.B. (Hons) Five years. (c) LL.B For the remaining period of two or one year. (d) LL.M. Two years. (e) A Fellowship holders Not more than and Full-time registered Four years and admitted Research Scholars. In no case total stay of any student in the Hostel shall exceed six years or in the alternative till concerned examination is over. (c) LL.B For the remaining period of two or one year. (d) LL.M. Two years. (e) A Fellowship holders Not more than and Full-time registered Four years and admitted Research Scholars. In no case total stay of any student in the Hostel shall exceed six years or in the alternative till concerned examination is over. (xx) No visitor shall be allowed to enter into hostel without prior permission of the Warden. (xxi) Every hosteler shall be provided Identity Card duly signed by the Warden and shall produce it on demand. (xxii) No hosteler will create any hinderance to the proper functioning and checking in the hostel, including rooms. (xxiii) No hosteler shall remain outside after the stipulated time decided by the competent authority. (xxiv) If any hosteler participates in any unlawful activities, indiscipline or causes nuisance in the University premises or elsewhere, he shall be liable to vacate the Hostel. (xxv) If any student has any grievance with the employees of the University he will bring the same to the notice of the Registrar concerned and should not take any action at his end. (xxvi) Undertaking to the aforesaid effect will be executed by the student who is seeking admission to the hostel. 3. The Registrar and the Officer-in-charge assure this Court that exercise of admission of the students shall be completed within a period of five days from today and the successful candidates shall be granted entry. At this juncture the Registrar has pointed out that in respect of certain students criminal cases are pending. The students against whom criminal cases are pending their cases shall be separately scrutinised by the Admission Committee keeping in view the nature of offence. 4. As there is apprehension of law and order problem, Shri Surendra Pandey, S.P. Jabalpur who is personally present assures this Court that he will try his level best to maintain the law and order situation and provide two constables for guarding the hostel for a period of one month. Registrar shall make a written request to the S.P. Jabalpur in this regard. C.C. by 20-9-2000. Call on 26-9-2000.” 6. On 26-9-2000 it was intimated by the Registrar of the University that 12 students have been selected to take admission in the hostel and the list includes the three petitioners. Registrar shall make a written request to the S.P. Jabalpur in this regard. C.C. by 20-9-2000. Call on 26-9-2000.” 6. On 26-9-2000 it was intimated by the Registrar of the University that 12 students have been selected to take admission in the hostel and the list includes the three petitioners. On that day this Court passed the following order: “A statement has been made by the Registrar of the University that 12 students have been selected to take admission in the hostel and the list includes the three petitioners. The 12 students who have been selected shall deposit the fees by 3-10-2000. If the fees are deposited by that time the students shall be given entry to the hostel. In the meantime the admission committee shall scrutinise the cases of other students and result thereof shall be given to this Court by the Registrar. It is further directed that if any student files an affidavit that no criminal case is pending against him the same shall be prima-facie accepted and admission shall be given to him unless he is otherwise unfit.” 7. Presently I must revert to the chronological narration. On 9-10-2000 Mr. N.S. Kale, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents sought adjournment to file the counter affidavit. Time was granted as sought and the matter stood adjourned to 7-10-2000. Adjournment was again sought on 17-10-2000. On that day this Court issued the following direction: “List on 20-10-2000 as prayed for by Mr. Greeshm Jain, learned counsel for the University. The Registrar who is personally present undertakes to get the cases of 27 students scrutinised by the Admission Committee by that time and produce the result there of before this Court.” 8. On 20-10-2000 the Registrars submitted that the cases of the left out students were scrutinised by the Admission Committee and 9 students had already been admitted. It was also put forth by him that the case of the rest of the students were under consideration. On that day Mr. Kale, learned senior counsel submitted that the students who have not been selected for the admission are totally indisciplined. However, he assured this Court that the Admission Committee shall go into the details with regard to their conduct and submit a report. On 10-11-2000 the Registrar submitted that 44 students out of 70 have been admitted. On that day Mr. Kale, learned senior counsel submitted that the students who have not been selected for the admission are totally indisciplined. However, he assured this Court that the Admission Committee shall go into the details with regard to their conduct and submit a report. On 10-11-2000 the Registrar submitted that 44 students out of 70 have been admitted. It was also mentioned by him that 26 students have not been found suitable by the Admission Scrutiny Committee. He was directed to file a memo indicating reasons in respect of individual case. On 13-11-2000 this Court passed the following order: “By order dated 10-11-2000 this Court had directed as under: “It is submitted by Mr. Patel, Registrar of the University that so far 44 students our of 70 have been admitted. It is put-forth by him that other 26 students have not been found suitable by the Admission Scrutiny Committee. He shall file a memo indicating reasons in respect of individual case.” Today a memo has been filed by Mr. Patel, Registrar of the University wherein it has been mentioned that 20 students were not found fit by the Vice-Chancellor as they had not behaved in a disciplined manner. Other 5 students have not filed affidavit as directed by this Court. Submission of Mr. N.S. Kale, learned senior counsel for the University is that it is prerogative of the Vice-Chancellor to run the hostel and he should be allowed that privilege. It is not disputed that Administrators of the University have real role to run the hostel. However, it cannot be disputed that there should be objective assessment of the factual scenario. As per the memo filed by the Registrar of the University due to indiscipline 20 students have not been admitted. Mr. Kale, learned counsel for the University has submitted that if the Vice-Chancellor fails to run the hostel this Court can interfere solely on the ground of unreasonableness. Presently I am not inclined to address to that legal proposition. As 20 students have been regarded as indisciplined as per the decision of the Vice-Chancellor. It is directed that each of them shall submit a representation which would incorporate undertaking for maintenance of discipline. The Vice-chancellor shall consider the representation from all aspects and pass appropriate orders. Presently I am not inclined to address to that legal proposition. As 20 students have been regarded as indisciplined as per the decision of the Vice-Chancellor. It is directed that each of them shall submit a representation which would incorporate undertaking for maintenance of discipline. The Vice-chancellor shall consider the representation from all aspects and pass appropriate orders. The representation should be submitted within a week and the Vice-Chancellor of the University shall decide the same within two weeks therefrom. Call on 7-12-2000.” 9. On a perusal of the aforesaid order it transpires that the Vice-Chancellor was directed to consider the representations from all aspects and pass appropriate orders. Later on the decision of the Vice-Chancellor was produced indicating that he has refused to admit the students on various grounds. On 20-1-2001 the matter was taken up for hearing. At that juncture considering the submissions of Mr. Kale, the following order was passed: “Mr. Mohd. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. N.S. Kale, learned senior counsel for the respondents. In course of hearing of this writ petition Mr. N.S. Kale, learned senior counsel raised certain contentions supporting the action of the Vice-Chancellor, Rani Durgawati Vishwavidyalaya, Jabalpur, the respondent No. 2 herein. The contentions are that the initial the action taken by the Vice-Chancellor is an administrative act and hence, not subject to judicial review of this Court; there was law and order problem in maintaining the discipline of the hostel and therefore, the concept of natural justice is ostracized and no hosteler is entitled to notice; that the action taken by the Vice-Chancellor is bona fide and has a foundation as has been putforth in the return filed by the University and this Court being not an expert in this matter cannot lancet the bona fide act of the Vice-Chancellor. The learned senior counsel has further submitted that entering into an arena of this nature will be like entering into the see unchartered and notion of discipline which should Courts have cannot be taken aid of while dealing a case of this nature. The learned senior counsel has further submitted that entering into an arena of this nature will be like entering into the see unchartered and notion of discipline which should Courts have cannot be taken aid of while dealing a case of this nature. He has fairly submitted that there has been a failure of law and order situation in the University campus and the hostel being in the close vicinity of the administrative block of the University, the authorities are facing enormous troubles from the hostelers as well as from anti social elements who unauthorisedly tress pass into the University campus and create commotion in the University. Mr. Mohd. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioners, per contra, has contended that the Vice-Chancellor cannot act on his own and is required to take the decision with the assistance of Executive Council under Section 24 of the Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973. Having heard learned counsel for the parties the questions that warrant determination in this case are whether an administrative decision taken by the Vice-Chancellor is beyond the preview of judicial review; whether right to education which eventually enhances the ability of the student to make progress in his life and sustain his life, a precious gift of Almighty comes within the ambit and sweep of Article 21 of the Constitution; whether the State being a welfare State has to see that educational institutions to run properly because it is the duty of the State to establish institutions to impart education; and whether the students who are admitted in the hostel have to bind themselves by the requirements of Article 51-A of the Constitution. The issues being important in nature it is thought apposite to engage an amicus curiae. Mr. N.C. Jain, learned senior counsel, who was present in Court readily agreed to assist the Court. Though the State Government is not a party to this lis, the assistance of learned Advocate General was sought for inasmuch as a colossus complaint has been made by Mr. Kale with regard to the law and order situation. To facilitate the hearing of this writ petition Registry is directed to make photo copies of the writ petition, return and rejoinder affidavit along with the annexure in course of the day and handover the same to Mr. Rakesh Jain, learned counsel who would accept the same on behalf of Mr. Kale with regard to the law and order situation. To facilitate the hearing of this writ petition Registry is directed to make photo copies of the writ petition, return and rejoinder affidavit along with the annexure in course of the day and handover the same to Mr. Rakesh Jain, learned counsel who would accept the same on behalf of Mr. N.C. Jain, learned senior counsel, and Mr. Sunil Choubey, learned Panel Lawyer for the State, who would accept the same on behalf of learned Advocate General. Let copy of order sheets dated 18-9-2000, 19-9-2000, 26-9-2000, 20-10-2000, 13-11-2000 along with the order passed today be also handedover to the learned counsel whose names have been referred above in course of the day. As agreed to by the learned counsel appearing in the matter let the matter be listed on 2-2-2001.” 10. At this juncture it is apposite to state here that MR.N. C. Jain, learned senior counsel who was asked to act as a friend of the Court had to leave for Bombay on a personal count and at this behest Mr. R.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel accepted to be the learned Amicus Curiae. The hearing continued thereafter and on 2-2-2001 Mr. Kale, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent University brought certain aspects to the notice of this Court. Considering his submissions this Court passed the following order: “In course of hearing of this writ petition Mr. N.S. Kale, learned senior counsel appearing for the University made a colossus complaint that hostel in question has been invaded by the anti social elements as a result of which it has become extremely difficult to run the same and in fact it is not........At that juncture Mr. A.D.N. Bajpai the Warden of the hostel who is personally present categorically asseverated that though forty four students have been admitted after their cases have been scrutinised by the Admission Committee more students who are in fact anti socials have been staying in the hostel. This requires investigation. Mr. Tankha, learned Advocate General who has been requested to assist the Court on the last occasion has fairly submitted that the District Administration is prepared to assist the University from all quarters. Keeping in view the allegations made by Mr. Kale, learned senior counsel and Mr. Bajpai the Warden of the hostel and taking note of the assurance given by Mr. Keeping in view the allegations made by Mr. Kale, learned senior counsel and Mr. Bajpai the Warden of the hostel and taking note of the assurance given by Mr. Tankha, I deem it fit to direct the Collector and Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur to find out about the present inhabitants of the hostel to the effect whether the occupants who have been admitted by the Admission Committee are occupying the hostel or there are others. They would also investigate whether during pendency of the writ petition any other students or outsiders are occupying in rooms of the hostel. They shall submit a report by 6th February, 2001. Call on 8-2-2001. Let a free copy of this order be handed over to Mr. P.D. Gupta, learned Dy. A.G. in course of the day.” 11. In pursuance of the aforesaid order the Collector Jabalpur and the Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur investigated in the matter and submitted a report. A copy of the report was directed to be handed over to the counsel for the parties. 12. Before I advert to the report of the aforesaid authorities I think it apposite to refer to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents to understand the stand of the University and to keep the narration in continuance. The stand of the University is that the hostel has become a centre of criminal activities and the criminal activities are directed by the students who legally or illegally residing in the hostel. There are many inmates of the hostel who are hardened criminals, and they are involved in number of criminal offences. They are also terror for the other inmates and forcibly procure their participation in the crime. It has been pleaded that this criminal elements though they are not granted admission to the hostel forcibly share the rooms with other innocent students. Indiscipline has become a chronic problem and it has started penetrating into the day to day administration of the University. It is also set forth in the counter affidavit that the hostel is about 25 yards away from the main administrative building of the University as a result of which it has become very easy for the students to mobilise the inmates of the hostel and commit acts of violence inside the administrative block of the University. It is also set forth in the counter affidavit that the hostel is about 25 yards away from the main administrative building of the University as a result of which it has become very easy for the students to mobilise the inmates of the hostel and commit acts of violence inside the administrative block of the University. It has been alleged that the teachers of the University as well as the employees have been manhandled on numerous occasions and number of cases have been registered against the hostelers in the Civil Line Police Station. It has also been highlighted that the Executive Council of the Respondent University unanimously decided to appoint an Enquiry Committee under the Chairmanship of Justice Gulab Gupta, Chief Justice (Retired) of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh to enquiry into the complaint in relation to Men's hostel and to submit its recommendation. There were other members in the Committee also. The said Committee dealt with the problems of the University hostel and recorded certain findings. It is pleaded in the return that the findings indicate that the hostel has become a centre of criminal activities and criminals take refuge in the hostel. A portion of the findings recorded by the Committee has also been quoted. It is also put forth that on 6-4-1995, Ashok Tomar and Satyendra Kushwaha and about 10 others all inmates of the hostel, forcibly entered the office of the Vice-Chancellor and man-handled him. Shri Alok Mishra who was the elected Executive Councillor intervened and asked the students to desist from humiliating and man-handling the Vice-Chancellor. These inmates beat the Executive Councillor and damages his car which was parked in the University premises and turned it upside down and tore its tyres with knife. The request of the Executive Councillor was not paid head to. It has been alleged that the Executive Councillor lodged an FIR and a Crime No. 96/1995 has been registered. Similar other circumstances have been mentioned in the return to highlight that some of the inmates have been involved in the criminal activities. It has been put forth in paragraph 11 of the return that on 30-8-2000 the inmates of the hostel under the leadership of Amol Chowrasiya attacked the procession of the students who had come from the city to the University to submit a memorandum to the Vice-Chancellor, and numerous members of the procession were severely injured. It has been put forth in paragraph 11 of the return that on 30-8-2000 the inmates of the hostel under the leadership of Amol Chowrasiya attacked the procession of the students who had come from the city to the University to submit a memorandum to the Vice-Chancellor, and numerous members of the procession were severely injured. Under these circumstances the Vice-Chancellor asked the hostel Superintendent Shri Ramdeo Bhardwaj to submit a report. He submitted a report on 30-8-2000 stating that there are number of students residing unlawfully in the hostel and they are creating terror in the University premises for the employees and students of the University. He also made reference to the acts of violence committed by the inmates of the hostel and indicated that the same has adversely affected the educational and administrative environment of the University and created a serious law and order problem. As further stated the Dean of Students Welfare was directed to put up a note. The Dean recommended that the inmates of the hostel were unlawfully occupying the hostel and they must be removed and in view of the aforesaid factual matrix the Vice-Chancellor invoked the power conferred on him under Section 15(4) of the Act and took a decision to close the hostel. 13. It has been averred that the Vice-Chancellor is the best judge of the circumstances prevailing in the University and proper action has been taken from time to time and there is no mala-fide or arbitrariness on his part. It has been put forth that under the compelling circumstances the students were evicted and the principles of natural justice are not attracted in a case of this nature. It has been set-forth in the return that the students have no absolute right to admission in the hostel of the University and hence, the closure of the hostel was justified. 14. It is apposite to mention here that an application on behalf of the respondents was filed for vacating the interim orders but the same was not dealt with as the matter was taken up for final hearing. 15. I have heard Mr. Mohd. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. N.S. Kale, learned senior counsel with Mr. Greeshm Jain, learned counsel for the respondents. Mr. R.N. Singh, learned senior counsel with as the friend of the Court and Mr. 15. I have heard Mr. Mohd. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. N.S. Kale, learned senior counsel with Mr. Greeshm Jain, learned counsel for the respondents. Mr. R.N. Singh, learned senior counsel with as the friend of the Court and Mr. V.K. Tankha, learned Advocate General who was specially requested to assist the Court as a colossus complaint was made by the University with regard to the law and order situation. 16. Mr. Mohd. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that before evicting the students from the hostel the principles of natural justice have not been followed and that alone vitiates the entire action. It is also put forth by him that the Vice-Chancellor invoked the emergency powers though actually no emergency existed and such exercise of power is subject to judicial scrutiny and the Vice-Chancellor cannot claim immunity from it. It is further submitted by him that the matter should have been dealt with by the Executive Council and as the same has not been done the steps taken by the Vice-Chancellor have no sanction of law. 17. Resisting the aforesaid submissions. It is canvassed by Mr. Kale, that the Vice-Chancellor has the authority to close down the hostel if circumstances so warrant and in the case at hand the circumstances did exist and hence, no fault can be found with the action taken by him. It is urged by him that the administration of the University vests with the Vice-Chancellor under the statutory provisions subject to certain control by the Executive Council and if he is taking a decision which is ex-facie not irrational or unreasonable this Court should be slow to interfere in the same. The learned senior counsel has argued with immense vehemence that though the hostel has been functioning pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court the same should be allowed to be closed down as that has become a hide out for the criminals which is beyond the control of the University administration. Submission of Mr. Kale is that initial closure being valid in law the same should be allowed to stand and the subsequent events which have come into existence by virtue of the interim orders of this Court should not work as an impediment on the part of the Vice-Chancellor to close the hostel and prohibit any kind of entry to the same. Kale is that initial closure being valid in law the same should be allowed to stand and the subsequent events which have come into existence by virtue of the interim orders of this Court should not work as an impediment on the part of the Vice-Chancellor to close the hostel and prohibit any kind of entry to the same. The proponement of learned counsel is that the decision taken by the Vice-Chancellor has been sent to the Executive Council but as there has been no reference by the Executive Council to the Chancellor it is to be presumed that the action taken by the Vice-Chancellor has been concurred with by the Executive Council and, therefore, the action of the Vice-Chancellor cannot be faulted. The learned counsel has also canvassed, as has been noted in the prefatory note, a free play in the joints has to be allowed in the matter of administration otherwise it would be difficult to administer the University and there will be total chaos. 18. Mr. R.N. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing as the friend of Court has submitted that educational institutions are established to impart education and every student has a right to avail education if he is not otherwise unfit. Submission of Mr. Singh is that the enormous complaints made by the university authorities in a way relate to law and order situation and if the law and order situation is not controlled that would amount to failure of the university administration and the help/aid from the State must be sought so that the hostel is run in a peaceful manner. The learned senior counsel has submitted that there should be a pragmatic approach to the problem but not a dogmatic approach. 19. Mr. V.K. Tankha, learned A.G. who was specially requested to assist the Court has submitted that problems in hostels are not exclusive to this University as many a University faces these problems and it requires to be dealt with. The learned A.G. has assured this Court as the ground of closure relates to law and order situation the State would take absolute care of the same whenever asked for by the University authorities. 20. Now to the first aspect of the case whether the Vice-Chancellor was justified in closing the hostel and whether the principles of natural justice are attracted. Mr. 20. Now to the first aspect of the case whether the Vice-Chancellor was justified in closing the hostel and whether the principles of natural justice are attracted. Mr. Kale, learned senior counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to Annexure R-1 and has pointed out that the situation had gone beyond the control of administration and there were various complaints from number of quarters that anti socials had invaded into the hostel and they had created a sense of terror among the inmates as a result of which it had become difficult for smooth running of the hostel. The learned counsel has referred to the note of the Vice-Chancellor. He has also referred to the assertions made in the return. Before I adjudge the justifiability of the action of the Vice-Chancellor as per his order dated 31-8-2000, I would like to make it absolutely clear that the reliance placed by the University on the report of Justice Gulab Gupta the retired Chief Justice of High Court of Himachal Pradesh does not render much assistance to the University for the simple reason the report relates to the year 1998 and the present controversy is of 2000. True it is, past experience is a pointer, but to hold a pointer or treat it as a pathological diagnosis is unwarranted. May be the basic pathology or diathesis had existed in the year 1998-1999 but it cannot be said that there has been a situation indicating a bad prognosis in that regard. The malady if any had occurred in 2000 and the same has to be tested in the obtaining context. It is also submitted by Mr. Kale, that even if judged by the obtaining existing context the documents make it luminously clear that the action of the Vice-Chancellor is infallible. On a perusal of the note and averments in the return excluding the comments in the 1998 report, I am of the considered opinion that a situation of emergency had existed on the date the order was passed and the Vice-Chancellor was competent to pass the order for closure of the hostel invoking the emergency jurisdiction as contemplated under Section 15(4) of the Adhiniyam. 21. Now I shall advert to the issue whether the principles of natural justice are attracted in such a fact situation. In the case at hand no individual student was asked to vacate. 21. Now I shall advert to the issue whether the principles of natural justice are attracted in such a fact situation. In the case at hand no individual student was asked to vacate. No punitive action was taken against any singular person. When an administrative decision was taken by the Vice-Chancellor to close the hostel because of a situation beyond control the concept of natural justice is not attracted. I may at this juncture state that this situation is comparable to mass copying to which the principles of natural justice is not attracted. In this context, I may profitably refer to a decision rendered in the case of Ratiram Singh Yadav vs. Principal, Govt. Polytechnic, Harda, AIR 1990 MP 129 , wherein it has been held as under:- “Where the adoption of unfair means by the students was detected by the invigilators and other authorities conducting the examination at the examination hall itself and the students immediately after being detected for misbehaviour or using unfair means walked out of the examination hall there was neither occasion nor any necessity to give a show cause notice or opportunity of hearing to the students who were involved in the indisciplined behavior.” A Full Bench of High Court of Orissa in the case of Miss Reeta vs. Berhampur University and Another, AIR 1993 Orissa 27 wherein it has been held as under:- “Further, the cancellation of her result was due to mass copying. In cases of mass copying, natural justice is not required to be complied with and as such it is apparent that the candidate in question does not get an opportunity to have his say in the matter.” In view of the aforesaid, the submissions of Mr. Ali are repelled. 22. Now to the next submission of Mr. Kale, which is a ticklish one, Mr. Kale, has not left no stone unturned to propone that once the action of the Vice-Chancellor is given the stamp of approval by this Court the hostel must be deemed to be closed and should not be allowed to run. This according to the learned counsel is based on the principles of “A furtiori.” Submission of Mr. Kale is that this Court should not take note of the events that have occured in the interrgnum period. This according to the learned counsel is based on the principles of “A furtiori.” Submission of Mr. Kale is that this Court should not take note of the events that have occured in the interrgnum period. Before I proceed to dialate on that I may profitably refer to a decision rendered in the case of M/s Shantistar Builders vs. Narayan Khimala Totame and Others, AIR 1990 SC 630 , wherein the Apex Court held as under:- “Basic needs of man have traditionally been accepted to be three - food, clothing and shelter. The right to life is guaranteed in any civilised society. That would take within its sweep the right to food, the right to clothing, the right to decent environment and a reasonable accommodation to live. The difference between the need of an animal and a human being for shelter has to be kept in view. For the animal it is the bare protection of the body; for a human being it has to be a suitable accommodation which would allow him to grow in every aspect- physical, mental and intellectual.” The question that arises for consideration should this Court ask the students to vacate the hostel unless there are justifiable reasons existing in praesenti. I have quoted in extenso the interlocutory orders passed by this Court to make it graphically clear that revised rules were produced by the University, an Admission committee was constituted and on verification of antecedents certain students have been admitted. Quite apart from the above as per the orders of this Court the Collector and Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur have visited the hostel and submitted a report which has been brought on record. On a surprise inspection in the early morning the Additional District Magistrate and the Additional S. P. have found that no anti social elements were found living in the hostel. At this juncture, I think it apposite to reproduce the relevant portion of the report: “Inference: 1. To find out about the present inhabitants of the hostel to the effect of whether the occupants who have been admitted by the admission committee are occupying the hostel or there are others. We have relied on the two surprise inspections of the Hostel made in presence of the Warden and the Superintendent of the University, as these may be the best methods to catch unauthorised residents on the spot. We have relied on the two surprise inspections of the Hostel made in presence of the Warden and the Superintendent of the University, as these may be the best methods to catch unauthorised residents on the spot. In the first inspection no student was found residing inside the hostel. Suspicion lies on Shri Anil Gupta who has stated that he has only kept his luggage in room number 52 that has been allotted to one Shri Devi Singh and he stay in the temple outside. This fact cannot be digested since the clerk in charge of the hostel has stated that university has not put its lock in the rooms not allotted or occupied. Such students are bound to find a place in rooms that have never been locked by the authorities of the University, especially when there is a great demand for accommodation among students. It can be inferred that he is living in the hostel. During the second surprise inspection of the hostel in the early hours of the day when every resident was sleeping only one person Shri Hemant Parihar was found living in room number 87. He claimed that he was a cook and prepared food for the students after the mess was closed. Hence it can be inferred that during two surprise visits only two persons can be considered to be staying in the hostel in an unauthorised manner out of 102 rooms of the hostel, which is a negligible number. 2. Investigate whether during the pendency of the writ petition any other student or outsider had occupied the rooms of the hostel. This issue is more complex to enquire into as it has to investigate into facts in the PAST and we have to rely on statements of the University Authority, the Staff and the students and other facts like written complaints etc. After the order of the Honourable High Court directing the University to give admission to the students in the hostel, new warden and superintendent have taken over. Whereas the present warden Mr. A.D.N. Bajpai has stated that some students with criminal records are living in the hostel in an unauthorised manner, the previous warden Mr. R.B. Dwivedi has stated that during his tenure of nearly a year no student who was not allotted a room in the lived there. Whereas the present warden Mr. A.D.N. Bajpai has stated that some students with criminal records are living in the hostel in an unauthorised manner, the previous warden Mr. R.B. Dwivedi has stated that during his tenure of nearly a year no student who was not allotted a room in the lived there. He also stated that no student staying in the hostel had ever engaged in unsocial activity. The attendant of the hostel Shri Ashwani Kumar Dubey stated that approximately 35 students are staying in the rooms, the office of the dealing clerk of the hostel has not been opened for 2-3 months and that he does not know names of the students who have not been allotted a room in the hostel and still staying there. Shri R.D. Patel, U.D.C. stated that only 29 students have been allotted rooms, 71 rooms have the locks of the students who lived before, the University has never put his own lock, he has never visited the hostel out of fear, no warden has ever checked the hostel, I had reported this matter to the previous warden Dr. R.B. Dwivedi. Hence we infer from these statements that though the present authority say that some students are staying in the hostel in an unauthorised manner, no report has been presented by them in this regard. The previous warden contradicts these statements. Hence the statements can be considered to be made only on the basis of some 'hearsay' evidence and not substantiated by facts. Prof. Sureshwar Sharma, Vice-Chancellor of the University has taken-up a very valid question regarding the number of locks put on the rooms of the hostel. He reported that at the time of the first surprise inspection all 100 rooms were locked but during the second surprise inspection most of the rooms were not locked. We will like to state in this respect that during the earlier visit we had not taken-up the and nobody pointed out the issue of the locks on the room as every person present in the hostel were brought to us, thus assuming that even if a single person living in the hostel in an unauthorised manner was present, could be traced on the spot. The above contention of Prof. Sharma could have been more valid had the University put its own lock in every room after it was completely vacated in September 2000. The above contention of Prof. Sharma could have been more valid had the University put its own lock in every room after it was completely vacated in September 2000. Moreover if the statement of Shri R.D. Patel, UDC should be believed then none of the 29 students who have been given admission to the hostel in November 2000 after the orders of the Honourable Court has been allotted specific room against their names. This could have been guessed since Shri R.D. Patel has stated that he has never visited the hostel since then. The S.H.O. of Police Station, Civil Lines, under whose jurisdiction the said hostel is located has reported that since Nov. 2000 since the time the students were given admission in the hostel after the orders of the Honourable High Court, no complaint regarding unauthorised residence of the students was reported.” 23. I am conscious this Court is not expected to collect material but when circumstances warrant and a foundation is set and an edifice is built a report can be called from the law and order enforcing agencies. Hence, the report and reproduction of it. There is no reason to disbelieve the report of the law enforcing agency which has stated that presently no anti social elements are in the hostel. At this juncture Mr. Kale, learned senior counsel has submitted that when this Court passed the order calling for a report, news might have travelled as a result of which the anti social elements left the hostel and, therefore, the exercise done is a Sisyphian endeavour. The aforesaid submission has its own attraction in a first flush but if scrutinised with objectivity it pales into insignificance. The report deserves to be accepted as it relates to law and order situation. Now the question arises whether the hostel should be allowed to run in spite of no adverse report from the law enforcing agency. It is required to be stated in an unequivocal manner that no student has a right to get admission in the hostel on the ground that he is admitted to the University but his right must ripen as per the rules formulated for admission to the hostel; his conduct while residing in the hostel and also the over all scenario of the university. No student should think that he can remain in the hostel and abuse the facility. No student should think that he can remain in the hostel and abuse the facility. The students should not make any kind of efforts to control the administration of the University. The proximity of the hostel to the administrative block should not be taken advantage of. The heroism on the part of the students is not to be appreciated in this regard. In this context I may profitably refer to a passage from the decision rendered in the case of Ramgopal Bhadoriya and Others vs. Secretary, Board of Secondary Education and Others, W.P. No. 3818/1999 wherein this Court while commenting on the mass copying by the students observed as under:- “Before parting with the case I may observe that students are the future of the Nation and they are the real back bone. If they get themselves involved in adopting summary methods to achieve success the said success shall not only be short lived but would not be beneficial for them in the long run. An examination should not be perceived as a battle and the professors and invigilators as enemies. The students, while appearing in an examination, must create an atmosphere where the professors and invigilators may realise that their presence in the examination hall is a formality, a redundant one. But presently the situation is just the reverse. The students take recourse to various tactics to instill a sense of fear in those who invigilate and supervise as a result of which sometimes the police force is requisitioned. Every student must remember by indulging in copying he does not acquire knowledge but becomes a liability to himself. A student who does not perform the duties of a student cannot claim the rights and cannot claim the privileges of a new generation. Every student must remember that he has to follow the rule of law. He must recall that Greek Philosopher Socrates refused to run away from the jail in spite of request by his disciples as he felt that it would amount to violation of law. A student should not forget that his primary duty is to study and appear in an examination in the most fair and scrupulous manner. Threatning the invigilators or superintendents is not an act of heroism but is one of cowardice. A student should not forget that his primary duty is to study and appear in an examination in the most fair and scrupulous manner. Threatning the invigilators or superintendents is not an act of heroism but is one of cowardice. A student must keep in his mind that a hero is the ‘living light fountain’ and has ‘heroic nobleness’ and a ‘natural luminary shining by the gift of heaven’ and involvement in copying not only destroys his basic native heroic nobility but sends him to the depths of abysmal hell. In my view no student would like to exhibit cowardice. He must sanguinely believe in the concept of upheaval as preched by Swami Vivekananda. Let conscience prevail and let the truth reign. Let copying be buried in its coffin failing which the Board shall be compelled to seek appropriate assistance from the State Government to control the situation at the examination centres. It is hoped that examinations shall be conducted in peaceful fair, scrupulous and dignified manner.” 24. I am aware that the aforesaid observation was made in the context of mass copying but the said observation shall also apply in full force to the present fact situation. It is expected that the students shall follow the basic tenants of a disciple and remember. The students must bear in mind that the role of a teacher in an educational institution. In this context I may profitably quote a passage from the decision rendered in the case of Sitam Seshanka vs. Principal, College Pharmaceutical Science and Another, AIR 1997 Orissa 62: “Shastras put the ‘Guru’ on a pedestal making him equivalent to God and treat him as one who enlightens, illumines, guides, paves the path of light, unfolds the brights horizon amidst the encircling gloom, expands his sura enigmatically reaching the true follower, and he is also the one who transfer his sense of originality, duty of accountability and progressive creativity to the dutious deciple leaving his lively foot-prints on the sands of time. In turn, the deciple follows him with reverence, acts in veneration and obeys with obeisance.” 25. Now, to the issue if the hostel is allowed to run whether the Vice-Chancellor should be deovid of power to take any action. Mr. Kale submitted that the Vice-Chancellor cannot be deprived of the power to close the hostel. 26. Mr. Singh and Mr. In turn, the deciple follows him with reverence, acts in veneration and obeys with obeisance.” 25. Now, to the issue if the hostel is allowed to run whether the Vice-Chancellor should be deovid of power to take any action. Mr. Kale submitted that the Vice-Chancellor cannot be deprived of the power to close the hostel. 26. Mr. Singh and Mr. Ali in their turn have contended that the Vice-Chancellor cannot afford to act in an arbitrary, unreasonable and unconcious manner. I have already held that the power to close the hostel does vest with the Vice-Chancellor but it requires to be clarified that such exercise of power has to be invoked in case of real emergency on a study of the fact situation based on objective data. It should always be borne in mind that he who enjoys more power conferred on him by law has to exercise the same with more self restraint. Unfettered an unfirdled exercise of power has no sanction law. It is also to be kept in mind that extreme remedies are provided in case of extreme maladies. In the case at hand peace which has been described by an eminent author as glory of God and indivisible, has been restored. Law and order situation is under control. A cathartic effect has taken place. If the hotel is to be closed a situation must emerge where the Vice-Chancellor may exercise the powers under Section 15(4) of the Act and shall in quite promptitude refer the same to the Executive Council which shall in due dispatch fulfil its statutory obligation as per the command of the statute. It needs no special emphasis to state that all concerned shall function within the statutory parameters maintaining the calmness of the Pacific abandoning sweeping opinion in favour of reasoned judgment. 27. I will be failing in my duty if I do not deal with a submission of Mr. Kale to the effect that in view of larger public interest this Court must uphold the closure of the hostel and allow it to be closed though the interest of the students are involved which is of a lesser public interest. In this regard I remember a Shastric principle which is under:- 28. Kale to the effect that in view of larger public interest this Court must uphold the closure of the hostel and allow it to be closed though the interest of the students are involved which is of a lesser public interest. In this regard I remember a Shastric principle which is under:- 28. True it is a lesser public interest must yield to a larger public interest but how in a welfare state, a Court exercising extra ordinary jurisdiction in the obtaining factual matrix say that the students who are the future generation of this nation have no right to avail education by getting accommodation in a University hostel. Though the aforesaid principle in certain circumstances is applicable in my humble and considered view the same is not applicable to the case at hand. True it is, the Vice-Chancellor is competent to judge the situation and appreciating that this Court has up held the action of the Vice-Chancellor but when subsequent events have taken place, as have been referred to earlier, I am of the considered view the change, which has acceptance in law, has to given its due. It cannot be said that such a view tantamounts to judicial arrogance but on the contrary it is a worthwhile step indicating the serviceability of this institution. I say no more. 29. In view of the aforesaid premises it is directed that the hostel which has started functioning would continue to function and the students who have been admitted by the admission committee shall be allowed to remain in the hostel. If any law and order situation crops up the Warden of the hostel should inform the State Administration which shall rise to the occasion and render all possible assistance. When everything would fail and real emergency arise, steps may be taken as per law subject to observations made in the paragraph 25. 30. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of without any order as to costs.