Judgment :- K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. The Principal of the College of Engineering, Trivandrum is the appellant herein. Writ Petition was preferred by respondents 1 to 5 challenging Ext. P5 order passed by the Principal suspending them from the college with effect from 31.1.2001 to 31.5.2001. The order also stated that they would not be re-admitted to the college hostel in future. 2. Respondents 1 to 4 were final year students of the College of Engineering, Trivandrum and the fifth respondent was the second year student of the same college. One E. Liju, first year student of Mechanical Engineering of the college lodged a complaint of ragging by senior students of the college on the night of 29.1.2001. Father of Liju submitted a complaint to the Principal on 30.1.2001. Complainant Liju was later admitted to Taluk Headquarters Hospital, Neyyattinkara. On receipt of the complaint from the father of Liju, Principal constituted an enquiry commission consisting of Dr. C. Sam, Professor of Civil Engineer as Convener and Professor A. Shajilal and Professor T.M. Mohan as members. They submitted a report on 16.2.2001 stating that some unusual incident had happened to Liju on 29.1.2001 in the hostel. O.P. ticket produced from the Taluk Headquarters Hospital would reveal that he was assaulted physically. Principal and Warden called Liju in person and recorded the statement on 22nd and 23rd of February 2001. Liju stated that he could identify the assailants from among group of photograph of students. He also identified fifth respondent. Fifth person was identified as John V. Thomas. 3. The Principal was convinced on the basis of the report of the enquiry commission as well as the statement recorded from Liju, that he was subjected to severe physical and mental torture, which would satisfy the definition of S.2(b) (1) (ii) of the Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1998. Principal accordingly passed Ext. P5 order suspending respondents 1 to 5 for a period with effect from 31.1.2001 to 31.5.2001. The Writ Petition was preferred against the said order. Writ petitioners moved C.M.P. No. 18942 of 2001 seeking permission to appear for second terminal examination which was to commence from 6.4.2001. Interim prayer was granted. However, learned single judge ordered that results would not be published and participation in the examination would be subject to further orders of this Court. The Writ Petition was preferred against the said order. Writ petitioners moved C.M.P. No. 18942 of 2001 seeking permission to appear for second terminal examination which was to commence from 6.4.2001. Interim prayer was granted. However, learned single judge ordered that results would not be published and participation in the examination would be subject to further orders of this Court. Writ Petitioners filed C.M.P. No. 25444 of 2001 to permit them to appear for the other examinations. Learned single judge passed an order on 11.4.2001 permitting them to appear for those examination on condition that the results would not be published without further orders. Original Petition was later disposed of by the learned Single Judge regularising the examination taken on the basis of the interim orders of this Court. Aggrieved by the same Principal has filed this appeal. We heard counsel on either side. 4. We are of the view that the learned single judge was not justified in interfering with the punishment imposed by the Principal. A Division Bench of this Court in (2000 (2) KLT 11) had cautioned the students of Government Engineering College, Trivandrum for having indulged in ragging in the year 2000. We had to summon some of the offenders but did not take any action on the hope that the students would mend their ways. We are sorry to note that it never brought the desired results. The Bench expressed concern regarding wide-spread ragging in educational institutions. In many instances, authorities, in order to protect the image of the institution protect the wrongdoers. 5.The State in order to avert the menace of ragging had enacted Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act 1998 which cast a duty on the Head of Institution to prohibit ragging. Head of the Department shall not be mute spectator of such incidents. As soon as complaint is received he has to take action on the basis of the report. S.4 of the Act states that whoever commits, participates in, abets or propagates ragging within, or without, any educational institution shall, on conviction be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years and shall also be liable to a fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees. S.4 of the Act states that whoever commits, participates in, abets or propagates ragging within, or without, any educational institution shall, on conviction be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years and shall also be liable to a fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees. Obligation is also cast under S.6 of the Act on the Head of the Institution to conduct enquiry on receipt of complaint of ragging and if, prima facie, it is found true, suspend the student who is accused of the offence. S.7 of the Act which says that if the head of the institution fails or neglects to take action in the matter specified in S.6 when a complaint of ragging is made, such person shall be deemed to have abetted the offence of ragging and shall, on conviction, be punished as provided for in S.4. Therefore, head of the institution has to be vigilant lest he may have to undergo punishment under S.6 of the Act. 6. In the instant case as soon as Principal received complaint from the student as well as from the father of the student the Principal constituted an enquiry commission consisting of three Professors and it is on the basis of the report of the Commission and the statement recorded from the student and the Principal decided to suspend the writ petitioner for a period of five months. As per the Act petitioners have necessarily to undergo the said punishment. 7. We are convinced that Principal was only discharging his statutory duty by initiating action on the basis of the report of the commission and in the best interest of the institution. We have therefore no hesitation to set aside the judgment of the learned single judge interfering with the orders of the Principal. We do so. However, we may direct the Principal to give writ petitioners opportunity to complete their course at the earliest. We also note the Principal has also stated that the petitioners can be given opportunity to appear for the internal examinations and do the laboratory work at the next immediate chance when the subject is offered. Principal has also stated that the students could attend to experiments and submit assignments only when a particular semester is on. We also note the Principal has also stated that the petitioners can be given opportunity to appear for the internal examinations and do the laboratory work at the next immediate chance when the subject is offered. Principal has also stated that the students could attend to experiments and submit assignments only when a particular semester is on. Third petitioner can complete his pending laboratory work if he registers as per the University norms for the semesters when the particular courses are offered. 8. Before parting with the case, we may refer to the decision of the Apex Court in Vishwas Jagrlti Mission Through President v. Central Government Through Cabinet Secretary (AIR 2001 SCW 2871). In the aforementioned decision Apex Court has laid down guidelines for information of educational institutions. Apex Court held that the application form for admission/ enrolment shall have a printed undertaking to be filled up and signed by the candidate to the effect that he/she is aware of the Institution's approach towards ragging and the punishments to which he or she shall be liable if found guilty of ragging. Similar undertaking should have been obtained from the writ petitioners/ guardian of the writ petitioners. Principal and the College Authorities would take expeditious steps to give effect to the guidelines laid down by the apex court. The appeal would stand allowed as above.