ORDER 5.1.2007 Heard. The petitioners are the Governing Body and the Principal of the Palsama +2 College. They challenge the order Annexure-4 by which the Council, Higher Secondary Education, Orissa, opp.party No.1 cancelled Physics Paper-1 of Science stream on the ground of mass mal practice. Petitioners put forth their case that only four students were caught raid handed with incriminating materi¬als and, therefore, all the 98 students appearing at the exami¬nation should not be punished. It reveals from the rejoinder filed today that petitioners plead their innocence and alleges that a false report was submitted by the Flying Squad as against the examinees of Physics Paper-1, which examination was conducted on 6.3.2006. On the other hand opp.party Nos.1 and 2 have stated in their counter that the Flying Squad found the students being indulged in mass mal practice, persons who were not assigned with invigilation duty were in the surrounding area of the exami¬nation center. Accordingly the opp.party members reiterated the decision and pray to dismiss the writ petition. Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioners argues that there is no proof available to the opp.party No.1 regarding mal practice resorted to by any other students except four stu¬dents who were named in the report and, therefore, this Case was squarely governed by the ratio in the case Indira Gandhi Mahila Mahavidyalaya and another v. The Council of Higher Secondary Education; 2006 (II) OLR 774 . He further submits that petitioners were never provided with opportunity of hearing before taking the decision in Annexure-4 by the opp.party-members and, therefore, such decision of opp.parties is violative of principle of natural justice. On the other hand Mr. Jena, learned counsel for opp.parties supports the plea taking in to account the counter and the deci¬sion taken in Annexure-4. He argues that providing an opportunity of hearing is neither the procedure provided in the statute nor the mandate of any law. In support of that submission he relies on the decision in the case of Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhas Chandra Sinha and others; A.I.R. 1970 SC 1269. Mr. Jena also produces before us the report of the Flying Squad. It reveals from that report that three Lecturers of three educational institutions were the members of the Flying Squad and they visited the examination centre of the petitioners on 6.3.2006. Mr. Jena also produces before us the report of the Flying Squad. It reveals from that report that three Lecturers of three educational institutions were the members of the Flying Squad and they visited the examination centre of the petitioners on 6.3.2006. In that report they have specifically stated that almost all the candidates were involved in mal practice, the Centre Superintendent, Invigilators and even persons who were not in invigilation duty were assisting and abetting the aforesaid mass mal practice inasmuch as after reaching of the Squad members in the examination hall, one lady Lecturer (Mrs. Pattanaik), some persons and staff collected incriminating materials from the candidates in the examination hall and rushed to hide the same. The Flying Squad in no uncertain terms made the report of mass mal practice. There is no evidence to falsify or rebut the above-discussed report of the Flying Squad. It is appropriate to note here that there is no allegation of mala fide substantiated by evidence as against the members of the Flying Squad. Report of the Flying Squad indicates about a sorry state of affair in conducting the examination on 6.3.2006 under the superintendence of petitioner No.2. In the case of Indira Gandhi Mahila Vidyalaya (supra) facts were completely different inasmuch as the Flying Squad found only 12 examinees indulged in the mal practice and there was no report or material that all the students were in¬dulged in mal practice. Therefore, ratio in that case is not applicable to the fact and circumstance of the present case. In view of the ratio of the apex Court in the case of Bihar School Examination Board (supra), petitioners cannot claim for personal hearing before the decision Annexure-4 was taken by opp.party members. Under such circumstances, after going through the contention in the writ petition and the rejoinder and contention in the counter filed by the Council and the submission made by the parties, we find that no illegality was committed in the decision taken by the opp.parties. Hence the writ petition is dismissed accordingly. Petition dismissed.