S. K. AGARWAL, J. ( 1 ) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing respondents notice (letter) dated 26. 3. 2003, cancelling his admission to the MBBS course after, about two years of study and for a writ of certiorari, quashing the eligibility condition contained in clause 3 (b) of the Bulletin of Information, 2001 of the Respondents, requiring that the candidates should have studied xith and xiith Classes regularly in a recognised school in National Capital Territory of Delhi (for short NCT of Delhi), for appearing in the entrance test for admission to MBBS/bds course, being illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unjust and violative of the principles of natural justice, equity and good conscience (hereinafter REFERRED TO as "the Entrance Test" ). ( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the parties submitted that pleadings are complete; the case concerns academic career of a student, therefore, the writ petition be heard and decided at this stage itself. Admit. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have been taken through the record. By this order I propose to dispose of the writ petition finally. ( 3 ) THE facts in brief, are that the petitioner passed xith class from Delhi Public School, Meerut Road, Ghaziabad, U. P. in April, 1999 and took admission in xiith class in DAV Public School, Shrestha Vihar, Delhi (hereinafter REFERRED TO as "school in Ghaziabad" and. "school in Delhi"), respectively. He passed xiith class examination conducted, by CBSE from the school in Delhi securing 78. 6% marks in June, 2000. In the year 1999 and 2000 and even earlier, the eligibility condition for MBBS/bds entrance test, as per respondent s admission Bulletins, was that the candidate should have passed xiith class examination from recognised school in Delhi. Petitioner fulfilled the requisite eligibility conditions and appeared in the Entrance Test, in May 2000; however, he could not make it to the list of successful candidates. Next year, on 26th May, 2001, petitioner again appeared in the Entrance Test and secured 116th position out of 215 successful candidates belonging to the general category. He was selected. He deposited the fee and joined the course. In July, 2002, he passed the first professional of the MBBS course in all subjects. Next year, on 26th May, 2001, petitioner again appeared in the Entrance Test and secured 116th position out of 215 successful candidates belonging to the general category. He was selected. He deposited the fee and joined the course. In July, 2002, he passed the first professional of the MBBS course in all subjects. ( 4 ) ON 1st August, 2002, the Dean, Faculty of Medical Sciences (respondent No. 2), issued a "memorandum" alleging that the petitioner secured admission in the MBBS course, 2001 in University College of Medical Sciences (for short ucms) by making a false declaration that he had studied in xith and xiith classes in DAV Public School, Delhi, but on verification, it was found that he studied xith class from DPS, Ghaziabad. He was asked to submit his explanation within ten days. On 10. 8. 2002, petitioner asked for a copy of the application form filled by him so as to enable him to submit reply. The same was not supplied despite reminder. On 3. 9. 2002, respondents issued a show cause notice to the petitioner stating that the eligibility condition for admission to the first professional MBBS course was that the candidate must have studied xith and xiith classes regularly from the recognised school in NCT of Delhi; the petitioner made a false declaration in the application form that he was a regular student of the DAV School Shrestha Vihar Delhi, during 1998-2000 and had studied xith and xiith classes from that school; the investigations revealed that the petitioner had studied in xith class from DPS, Ghaziabad, U. P. and that he had suppressed/hidden the material fact and took admission on the basis of false information. He was asked to "show cause" why his name be not removed from the college rolls and fee deposited by him be not forfeited. Petitioner sent a detailed reply to the show cause notice on 10. 9. 2002 submitting that his parents are practicing doctors and have been running a nursing home in Nehru Nagar, Ghaziabad; that in February, 2001, a handcuffed person (accompanied by an armed constable) visited petitioner s premises and demanded money from them; it was followed up with two telephonic calls, threatening that they would be murdered if the money was not paid; this gave rise to a morbid fear in the family, particularly in the backdrop of the previous incident dated 22. 6. 6. 1998 when unidentified assailants had shot at petitioner s father on the face in broad daylight, in his own clinic and fled away; his life could be saved with great difficulty after major surgery and prolonged hospitalization! Thus, the entire family had been going through a trauma and their outside movements were restricted under the police advice; they were provided with 24 hours armed security. Further, during the period the application form for Entrance Test, 2001 was to be submitted, petitioner fell sick and was suffering from high fever for several days, therefore, the original form was not filled up by petitioner himself. It was only signed by him and given to a family friend for completing and submitting the same. As the petitioner had earlier read the Admission bulletin before submission of the application form for the Entrance Test in the year 2000, he did not go through the admission Bulletin for the year 2001, which was a mistake on his part; he received the admit card in the normal course. The petitioner pleaded that he did not make any deliberate attempt to mislead the university or make any intentional wrong statement and it was pleaded that in the year 2001, he had also qualified for admission to the MBBS course at Armed Forces Medical college, Pune as well as at St. John s Medical college, Bangalore. As he had no guilty conscience, he opted for admission in UCMS, delhi and did not opt for any other college. It was also pleaded that in the Academic Year 2000, the eligibility criteria was that a candidate should have passed his xiith class examination of the CBSE from Delhi and it was not necessary that candidate should have also passed xith class from Delhi. The condition requiring the candidate to pass xith and xiith classes from Delhi came to be introduced in the academic session 2001 for the first time. The same was challenged in the High Court of Delhi, and the operation of the new condition in respect of all candidates, who had taken Entrance Test in 2000 was stayed. It was ordered that all persons, who had passed only xiith class from Delhi and had not passed xith class from Delhi should be allowed to appear in the Entrance Test. Thereafter, all such candidates appeared in the Entrance Test and were treated at par with other candidates. It was ordered that all persons, who had passed only xiith class from Delhi and had not passed xith class from Delhi should be allowed to appear in the Entrance Test. Thereafter, all such candidates appeared in the Entrance Test and were treated at par with other candidates. The petitioner also pleaded that they were receiving telephone calls demanding a hefty amount in order to get the proceedings closed down; that he was a victim of the circumstances; the mistake in the application form was a result of ignorance rather than dishonesty or mala fide. Lastly, it was pleaded that the proposed action against him would make him lose three crucial years of his career and would destroy his entire professional life, without benefiting any other person. He also prayed for an opportunity of personal hearing. On receipt of the copy of application form, the petitioner sent an additional reply to the show cause notice on 10. 10. 2002, praying for mercy, repeating that the cancellation of his admission would waste three years of his academic career; the mistake committed was unintentional and under the circumstances beyond his control; that he joined the medical profession with the aim of serving humanity; and prayed for a lenient view. ( 5 ) ON 24. 10. 2002, Medical Courses Admission Committee consisting of Dr. Sudhir K. Chauhan, A. C. Member, Prof. P. K. Srivastava, A. C. Member, Prof. L. K. Sood, Vice Principal, LHMC, Prof. O. P. Tandon. Principal, UCMS and Prof. B. K. Jain, Dean (Medical) (for short mca Committee ), after examining the matter, came to the conclusion that the information given by the petitioner in the application form was not correct. However, while determining punishment for giving false information, the Committee taking into consideration that the academic record of the petitioner was good; that the petitioner had already completed 14 months study in MBBS course and had passed first professional examination and that even the Principal of the school in Delhi accepted that the certificate showing that the petitioner had passed xith and xiith class examination from Delhi was issued due to oversight, decided to allow the petitioner to continue the course with a warning that in case there is any other misconduct by the petitioner his admission to the course would be cancelled. However, the Academic Council (for short ac ) in its meeting held on 3. 2. However, the Academic Council (for short ac ) in its meeting held on 3. 2. 2003 disagreed with the decision of the MCA Committee and petitioner s admission to the MBBS course was cancelled. ( 6 ) ON coming to know about the decision of the AC, the petitioner submitted representations to the Pro-Vice Chancellor and Vice Chancellor praying for intervention but no reply was received. Left with no option, petitioner filed a writ petition on 5. 4. 2003 for quashing th "show cause notice" as well as the notice (letter) dated 26. 3. 2003, cancelling his admission. The petition was amended and relief for a writ of certiorari quashing the eligibility condition requiring that the candidate should have studied xith and xiith classes regularly in the recognised school in the NCT of Delhi, was added. Respondents have filed counter-affidavit, opposing the petition. The petitioner has filed rejoinder reiterating his stand. ( 7 ) LAW regarding the reservation of seats for admission to the MBBS/bds and other medical courses based on residence or institution was settled by the Supreme Court in Dr. Pradeep Jain and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors, 1984 (3) SCC 654 . While approving that merit should be basic criteria for admission, it was held: "the philosophy and pragmatism of universal excellence through equality of opportunity for education and advancement across the natibn is part of our founding faith and constitutional creed. The effort must, therefore, always be to select the best and most meritorious students for admission to technical institutions and medical colleges by providing equal opportunity to all citizens in the country and no citizen can legitimately, without serious. detriment to the unity and integrity of the nation, be regarded as an outsider in our constitutional set-up. Moreover, it would be against national interest to admit in medical colleges or other institutions giving instruction in specialities, less meritorious students when more meritorious students are available, simply because the former are permanent residents or residents for a certain number of years in the State while the latter are not, though both categories are citizens of India. Moreover, it would be against national interest to admit in medical colleges or other institutions giving instruction in specialities, less meritorious students when more meritorious students are available, simply because the former are permanent residents or residents for a certain number of years in the State while the latter are not, though both categories are citizens of India. Exclusion of more meritorious students on the ground that they are not resident within the State would be likely to promote substandard candidates and bring about fall in medical competence, injurious in the long run to the very region, "it is no blessing to inflict quacks and medical midgets on people by wholesale sacrifice of talent at the threshold. Nor can the very best be rejected from admission because that will be a national loss and the interests of no region can be higher than those of the nation. " The primary consideration in selection of candidates for admission to the medical colleges must, therefore, be merit. The object of any rules which may be made for regulating admissions to the medical colleges must be to secure the best and most meritorious students. " ( 8 ) HOWEVER, the Apex Court after taking into consideration factors like inadequate opportunities and economic backwardness of a given State also held that certain percentage of reservation based on "residence" or "institution" in a State may be permitted for admission to the MBBS course, without violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India (hereinafter for short, constitution ). The Supreme Court again in Anant Madaan Vs. State of Haryana and Ors. 1995 2 SCC 135 , upheld the validity of the eligibility condition for entrance examination requiring that candidate should have studied for three years in a recognized institution in the State of Haryana. In view of this settled position of law, the challenge to the "eligibility condition" contained in clause 3 (b) of the Bulletin of Information (Under-Graduate Degree Courses), 2001, requiring that the candidate should have studied xith and xiith classes regularly from a recognized school in the NCT of Delhi, for appearing in the Entrance Test for MBBS/bds examination cannot be said to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Thus challenge to the eligibility condition is without merit and the same is rejected. Thus challenge to the eligibility condition is without merit and the same is rejected. ( 9 ) IT may be noted here, that several writ petitions were filed challenging the applicability of the "eligibility condition" contained in clause 3 (b) of Bulletin of Information, 2001 for appearing in the Entrance Test for MBBS/ BDS course. Initially individual orders were passed but looking into large number of petitions being filed by the candidates, who had passed only xiith class examination from delhi, Hon ble Mr, Justice S. K. Mahajan by a general order dated 18. 5. 2001 passed in Neha Barar Vs. University of Delhi (CWP. No. 3157/2001), directed the respondents to permit all such candidates, to appear in the Entrance Test, who had passed only xiith class from Delhi. It was ordered as under: "in an earlier case bearing No. CWP No. 1708/2001 this court in similar circumstances, had permitted the student to appear in the entrance examination for admission to MBBS and BDS courses for academic year 2001 and the respondent was directed to issue admit cared to that petitioner. Since large number of students who have studied in class xiith class in Delhi school and have not passed the class xith exam from a school in Delhi may have applied for appearing in the entrance exam for admission to MBBS and BDS course for academic year, 2001, I direct the respondent to issue admit card to all such students to appear in the entrance exam for this academic year. The petitioner will also be issued an admit cared for appearing in the entrance exam by the respondent. " ( 10 ) IN terms of the above order, passed by this Court, respondents permitted all such students who had passed only xiith class in Delhi and had not passed both xith and xiith classes examination from Delhi and who had applied for appearing in the Entrance Test for admission to the MBBS/bds course, to appear in the entrance examination and issued admit cards to them. But when the writ petitions came up for final hearing, it was found that none of the petitioners, in the eight different writ petitions, could reach up to the merit list. Those writ petitions were, therefore, disposed of as infructuous on 24. 7. But when the writ petitions came up for final hearing, it was found that none of the petitioners, in the eight different writ petitions, could reach up to the merit list. Those writ petitions were, therefore, disposed of as infructuous on 24. 7. 2001 without deciding the question as to the applicability of the eligibility condition and the same remains to be examined and tested. ( 11 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner argued that in the years 1999, 2000 and earlier the eligibility condition for appearing in the entrance Test in Delhi, was that the candidates should have passed only xiith class examination from a recognised school in Delhi; the petitioner, who upon the faith of this representation joined xiith class in Delhi in 1999, passed the same in the year 2000; he appeared in the Medical Entrance Test in the year 2000 but could not make up to the merit list, therefore, the "new eligibility condition" when applied to the case of petitioner, cannot be held to be reasonable and the same would not apply to him and the respondents are estopped from enforcing the same, on the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel and reasonable expectation. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the principles of promissory or equitable estoppel cannot be invoked by the petitioner as he himself mislead the University by making false statement; he appeared in the Entrance Test, under the new eligibility condition, 2001, and got admit card on the strength of false information furnishe d in the application form; he having participated in the process of selection cannot be permitted to challenge the correctness of the same; though petitioner earlier satisfied the eligibility condition but under new eligibility condition, he could not appear and mere hardship would not make the new eligibility condition bad in law, as there can be no estoppel against the statute. In support of his submissions reliance was placed on the observations made in university of Cochin Vs. N. S. Kanjoonjamma and Ors. 1997 IV SCC 426, Union of India Vs. Joginder Singh, 1994 (II) (Supl.) SCC 226 [para 5], Kumari Vasundhara Vs. State of Mysore 1971 (II) SCC 22 and State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Hindstone 1991 (II) SCC 205. In support of his submissions reliance was placed on the observations made in university of Cochin Vs. N. S. Kanjoonjamma and Ors. 1997 IV SCC 426, Union of India Vs. Joginder Singh, 1994 (II) (Supl.) SCC 226 [para 5], Kumari Vasundhara Vs. State of Mysore 1971 (II) SCC 22 and State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Hindstone 1991 (II) SCC 205. ( 12 ) THE core question is whether the eligibility condition contained in clause 3 (b) of the Bulletin of Information, 2001, requiring that the candidates should have studied xith and xiith classes regularly in the recognised school in the NCT of Delhi for appearing in the Entrance Test for admission to the MBBS/ BDS course, can be held to be rational, reasonable and not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, when applied to the candidates, who had already passed xiith class from the recognised school in Delhi prior to 2001? The answer to the question is provided by the Supreme Court observations, in Meenakshi Malik Vs. University of Delhi, 1989 SCC (3) 112, that "rules are intended to be reasonable and it should take into account variety of circumstances in which those whom the Rules seek to govern find themselves". In that case, the Supreme Court while relaxing the eligibility condition of two years study in Delhi, for appearing in the Medical Entrance Examination in case of students who have to live with their parents posted abroad, held as under: "it appears to us that the rigour of the condition prescribing that the last two years of education should be received in a school in Delhi should be relaxed, and there should be no insistence on the fulfilment of that condition, in the case of students of parents who are transferred to a foreign country by the Government and who are therefore required to leave India along with them. Rules are intended to_ be reasonable, and should take into account the variety of circumstances in which those whom the rules seek to govern find themselves. We are of the opinion that the condition in the prescription of qualifications for admission to a medical college in Delhi providing that the last two years of education should be in a school in Delhi should be construed as not applicable to students who have to leave with their parents on the parent being posted to a foreign country by the Government. " (emphasis supplied) ( 13 ) APPLYING the above principle to the facts of this case, petitioner s parents are living at Ghaziabad. He passed xith class examination from a public school in Ghaziabad in 1999 and joined xiith Class in Delhi with a view to enable him to appear in the medical entrance test in Delhi for admission to the MBBS course. He passed xiith-class examination in the year 2000, securing 78. 6% marks. In the years 1999, 2000 and even earlier, the only eligibility condition for appearing in the medical entrance test was that the candidate should have passed xiith class examination from Delhi and not both xith and xiith classes. Petitioner actually appeared in the medical entrance test in the year 2000. The candidates who had taken the irretrievable step of leaving their school in another State, and joining the School in Delhi in Class xiith with the hope and expectation that they would be able to appear in the Entrance Test cannot be denied this opportunity, by amending the rule and making it applicable even to candidates who have already passed Class xiith examination prior to the introduction of the new eligibility condition. It would be totally unjust and against the principles of equity to apply the changed eligibility condition to the candidates who have passed xiith class examination from Delhi prior to 2000. If this amended condition is insisted upon, it cannot withstand the test of reasonableness, as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. Therefore, the new eligibility condition has to be construed in a manner so as to exclude candidates who had passed xiith class examination prior to the year 2000, like the petitioner. The doctrine of equitable estoppel has been evolved by the courts on the principles of equity, to avoid injustice. The object is to interpose equity shorn of its form to mitigate the rigour of strict law. ( 14 ) COMING back to the facts at hand, it is no doubt true that the petitioner obtained admission to the MBBS course not on the basis of the general directions dated 18. 5. 2001 passed by this Court in Neha Barar s case but on the basis of a false declaration made to the effect that he had undertaken study of xith and xiith classes in Delhi. This false declaration, however, did not effect his merit position. 5. 2001 passed by this Court in Neha Barar s case but on the basis of a false declaration made to the effect that he had undertaken study of xith and xiith classes in Delhi. This false declaration, however, did not effect his merit position. It may be recalled that by virtue of the general order dated 18. 5. 2001, passed in Neha Barar s case, respondents permitted all students to appear in the Entrance Test, who had only passed xiith class from Delhi. All such students actually appeared in Entrance Test but could not qualify. In Dr. Pradeep Jain s case (supra) relied upon by the respondents, the Supreme Court while upholding certain percentage of reservation based on residence or institution has specifically laid down that "primary consideration in selection of the candidates for admission to the medical courses must be merit. " The object of any valid scheme of admission must be to select the best candidate for being admitted to medical colleges and if any departure is to be made from the principle of selection on the basis of merit it must be justified on the touch-stone of Article 14 of the Constitution. I fail to understand, in this case, how does it matter and affect merit if candidate has passed xith class from Ghaziabad or Delhi. The merit is the basic consideration. It is not in dispute that the petitioner in the year 2001 had also qualified for admission to the MBBS course in Armed Forces Medical College, Pune as well as St. John s Medical College, Bangalore but he opted for admission to the UCMS, Delhi, and did not opt for other colleges. There is also no, quarrel that he could have appeared under the general orders dated 18. 5. 2001 passed by this Court and his wrong declaration in the application could not have affected his merit. In short, the wrong declaration in the application form did not affect petitioner s merit position, in the selection process. At the risk of repetition in this case, the petitioner had secured 78. 6% marks in xiith class examination. He was eligible and undertook Entrance Test in the year 2000 but could not make up to the merit list. He again appeared in the Entrance Test in the year 2001 and made upto the merit list. At the risk of repetition in this case, the petitioner had secured 78. 6% marks in xiith class examination. He was eligible and undertook Entrance Test in the year 2000 but could not make up to the merit list. He again appeared in the Entrance Test in the year 2001 and made upto the merit list. He has already completed about two years study in the MBBS course and has already passed the professional course in all the subjects. Even if petitioner s admission is cancelled, the seat in the second year cannot be occupied by any other candidate, therefore, no useful purpose can be served by cancelling the admission at this stage. Ordinance X-C of the University of Delhi Calendar permits the Academic Council in suitable cases, to grant exemption from the operation of any of the Ordinances governing admission of the students. The cancellation of petitioner s admission, at this juncture would destroy his entire professional career without benefiting anybody else. The Medical Courses Admission Committee comprising of eminent educationists, after detailed examination of the material available on record, decided to allow the petitioner to continue the courses, with the warning that in case of any other misconduct committed by the petitioner, his admission to the course would be cancelled. This decision of the Medical Courses Admission Committee, could not be set aside by a cryptic non speaking resolution by the Academic Council. ( 15 ) IT may also be mentioned here that in the same meeting the Academic Council considering the case of one Ms. Neeta Sharma, whose marks were less than the required minimum prescribed by the eligibility criteria in M. A. [english] course and who was granted provisional admission, permitted her to continue study, despite her having not fulfilled minimum eligibility requirement. The eligibility requirement, in her case was relaxed by Academic Council, against the recommendation of theAdmission Committee. The primary consideration in selection of candidates for admission to medical colleges must be merit, as held by the Supreme Court in Pradeep Jain s case [supra]. There is no dispute that the petitioner was admitted to MBBS course only on merit. The ratio of the various decisions cited by learned counsel for the respondents is not applicable as in these cases either the issue was different or the merit of the candidates was in dispute, which is not so in the case ir. hand. There is no dispute that the petitioner was admitted to MBBS course only on merit. The ratio of the various decisions cited by learned counsel for the respondents is not applicable as in these cases either the issue was different or the merit of the candidates was in dispute, which is not so in the case ir. hand. ( 16 ) APART from the above, the Academic Council Resolution dated 3. 2. 2003 is not sustainable and is liable to be quashed on two other grounds. On 8. 4. 2003, at the time of issuing notice, respondents were directed to produce the record which was circulated to the Academic Council members, on the basis of which the Resolution cancelling petitioner s admission was passed. On. 30. 5. 2003, they only produced a photocopy of the Academic Council Resolution dated 3. 2. 2003, which reads as under: "the Council considered the recommendations of the Medical Courses Admission Committee held on 24. 10. 2002 in the case of Mr. Avijit Bansal, a student of 2nd Professional MBBS course at the University College of Medical Science. Resolved that the recommendations of the Medical Courses Admission Committee held on 24. 10. 2002 be not accepted and that admission of Mr. Avijit Bansal be cancdelled. " ( 17 ) THERE is nothing in the Academic Council Resolution to show what material was circulated to the members of the AC, when the above resolution was passed. Respondents were again directed to produce the documents, which were circulated to the AC members or in the alternative to file affidavit. On 9. 6. 2003 respondents filed an affidavit which only shows that except the decision of the Medical Courses Admission Committee dated 24. 10. 2002, nothing else was circulated to the members of the Academic Council alongwith the agenda. On being asked, learned counsel for the respondents very fairly conceded that no other document was circulated to members of the Academic Council. It is really surprising that the documents like memorandum, show cause notice, replies, representations of the petitioner and other connected documents were not even circulated to the members of the Academic Council alongwith the agenda. On being asked, learned counsel for the respondents very fairly conceded that no other document was circulated to members of the Academic Council. It is really surprising that the documents like memorandum, show cause notice, replies, representations of the petitioner and other connected documents were not even circulated to the members of the Academic Council alongwith the agenda. In the absence of these documents, how could-the members of the Academic Council overrule the well-considered decision of the Medical Courses Committee, which comprised of two members of the Academic Council; Principal, UCMS; Vice-Principal, LHMC and the Dean, Faculty of Medical Sciences. For this reason alone, the resolution of the Academic Council, cancelling petitioner s admission, is liable to be set aside for non-application of mind and being violative of principles of natural justice. ( 18 ) FURTHER, Section 2 (g) of the Delhi Right to Information Act, 2001 [hereinafter the Act ] defines "public authority" to mean any authority or body established or constituted [i] by or under the Constitution, and [ii] by any law made by the Government and includes any other body owned, controlled or substantially financed by funds provided directly or indirectly by the Government. Section 4[d] of the Act requires the public authorities to give reasons for its decisions, whether administrative or quasi judicial, to those affected by such decisions. Learned counsel for the respondents tried to save the situation by arguing that the Act is not applicable to the Delhi University. The argument is without merit. The definition of the public authority given under the Act is very wide. It includes any authority or body established by or under the constitution. By implication, it includes all authorities coming within the definition of state under Article 12 of the Constitution. Delhi University was created by an Act of Parliament under the Constitution. It is substantially financed by the funds provided directly or indirectly by the Government. The AC is an authority created under the Delhi. University Act, therefore, in my view, AC is a public authority within the meaning of Section 2[g] of the Act. Section 4[d] of the Act imposes obligation on a public authority to give reasons for its decisions, whether administrative or quasi judicial. This duty helps compliance with the principles of natural justice. University Act, therefore, in my view, AC is a public authority within the meaning of Section 2[g] of the Act. Section 4[d] of the Act imposes obligation on a public authority to give reasons for its decisions, whether administrative or quasi judicial. This duty helps compliance with the principles of natural justice. Thus, the AC, being a public authority, was bound to give reasons, for its resolutions, particularly while setting aside the admission of a student whose career is going to be decided by such a decision. The resolution of AC, being non-speaking, is liable to be quashed on this ground as well. ( 19 ) TO conclude, petitioner was admitted to the MBBS course on the basis of merit. The rigour of the eligibility condition requiring that candidates should have passed xith and xiith class examination from Delhi, introduced in the year 2001, cannot be applied to the candidates who have already passed xiith class examination from Delhi in the year 2000 or before. All candidates, similarly situated, had appeared in the Medical Entrance Test, under the orders passed by this Court on 18. 5. 2001 in neha Barar s case , but none of them could qualify, therefore, the writ petition became infructuous. The incorrect statement in the application form, thus, did not affect his merit position. Petitioner has already completed two years of study in the MBBS course and no useful purpose would be served by cancelling his admission at this stage since no one else can be accommodated in his place. The Medical Courses Admission Committee of eminent educationists, has considered the matter and their decision dated 24. 10. 2002 could not be set aside by the Academic Council by a nonspeaking order, particularly when, even the representations/ reply submitted by the petitioner were not before the members. In the end, I may also observe that petitioner and his family by now must have undergone mental pain and agony, spent enough time, energy and resources subsequent to the issuance of the show cause notice for cancellation of petitioner s admission in MBBS course, which by itself is enough punishment for the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of this case, cancellation of the petitioner s admission which would ruin his career and would benefit none, cannot be sustained. ( 20 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the writ petition succeeds. The show cause notice dated 3. 9. In the facts and circumstances of this case, cancellation of the petitioner s admission which would ruin his career and would benefit none, cannot be sustained. ( 20 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the writ petition succeeds. The show cause notice dated 3. 9. 2002; the Academic Council Resolution dated 3. 2. 2003; and the notice [letter] dated 26. 3. 2003 issued by the Principal, University College of Medical Sciences, cancelling the admission of the petitioner are quashed. Petitioner s admission to the MBBS course is restored and the interim order dated 9. 5. 2003 is made absolute. Respondents are directed to issue necessary orders in this regard. ( 21 ) WITH the above directions, writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.