Judgment : PARTHA SAKHA DATTA, J. (1) The petitioner, a student of Indian Institute of Technology at Kharagpur was arrested in connection with Kharagpur (Town) P.S. Case No. 201 of 2008 dated 18-10-2008 under Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act 1985. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, 4th Court at Paschim Medinipur granted bail in favour of the petitioner on 27th of October, 2008. There was a condition attached to the bail which is as follows:- "He must not have to involve or taking Heroine or any liquor etc. and Registrar, IIT, Kharagpur shall keep watch about this accused so that he shall have to mend in future and if any bad report is received from the Registrar, IIT regarding his daily performance and further involvement of taking any illicit liquor or Heroine or etc., his bail shall stand cancelled." (2) The authority in the IIT, Kharagpur passed an office order being No. IIT/Acad (UG)/G-26/2008, dated 21st October, 2008 which is as follows:-"The undersigned is directed to convey that on the recommendation of the Standing Disciplinary Committee of the Institute, the Director, as Chairman of the Senate, has approved outright expulsion of Shri Priyankar Biswas, Roll No. 9712116, from the Institute with immediate effect for possession of hallucinogenic drugs and being remanded in to judicial custody. This be reported to Senate at its next meeting. Deputy Registrar (Academic)" (3) The petitioneraccused challenged this order of the IIT, Kharagpur before the learned Special Judge, under NDPS Act, Paschim Medinipur by filing a petition with a prayer for stay of operation of the order of the authority.] Learned Special Judge by an order dated 10th of December, 2008 passed the following order:-"Heard Ld. Lawyer for both the sides and also considered the order dt. 2710-2008 and it is found that IIT, Kharagpur authority has terminated the present accused to continue his studies and that accused is Preyankar Biswas. But most peculiar factor is that till disposal of this case IIT authority has no jurisdiction to terminate such accused, who is the student of IIT and if any such act has been taken by the Registrar, IIT, Kharagpur on the basis of the order dated 27-10-2008 it is uncalled for. Fact remains, the Registrar, IIT, or Director, IIT have exceeded their jurisdiction and have failed to conceive the spirit of the order. Fact remains, the Registrar, IIT, or Director, IIT have exceeded their jurisdiction and have failed to conceive the spirit of the order. So, in the circumstances, the Director, IIT and Registrar, IIT, Kharagpur are directed to permit him to continue his studies and to admit him at IIT, Kharagpur to complete his studies and to report by 15-01-2009. This applicant/accused Priyankar Biswas is directed to appear before the Registrar, IIT and Director, IIT, Kharagpur for continuing his studies and the Registrar and the Director, IIT, Kharagpur, shall give him a chance to complete his studies, so that he may complete his Bachelor degree from that IIT. Send a copy of this order to the Director, IIT and the Registrar, IIT, Kharagpur at once to comply the order very strictly and the order shall be sent to the I.C., Kharagpur (T) P.S. to serve it upon the Director and the Registrar, IIT, Kharagpur immediately for its strict compliance." (4) This order dated 10th of December, 2008 has been challenged by the IIT, Kharagpur on the ground that it is the learned Judge, not the IIT, Kharagpur who has exceeded jurisdiction in interfering with the administrative affairs of the Institute and it was not the business of the learned Judge in the court below to direct the authority who is guided by its own Statute called Indian Institute of Technology (Kharagpur) Act 1956 and the rules framed thereunder, to permit the petitioner to continue his studies. (5) Mr. R.N. Majumder appearing with Mr. Joymalya Bagchi submitted that the direction of the learned Judge is absolutely uncalled for and the petitioner also chose a wrong forum to ventilate his grievance. It is the authority concerned in the Institute who is alone competent to proceed against the petitioner on the recommendation of the Standing Disciplinary Committee and if the petitioner has any grievance the court granting bail could not be the forum to ventilate his grievance. Mr. Milan Mukherjee, learned Advocate appearing for the opposite party no. 2student submitted that it was the wish and desire of the learned Special Judge under the NDPS Act that since the opposite party no. 2 was a student the Institute should not take any steps prejudicial to the prosecution of studies and duty was cast upon the authority to ensure that the authority must not exhibit any vindictive approach towards the student-opposite party no.2. 2 was a student the Institute should not take any steps prejudicial to the prosecution of studies and duty was cast upon the authority to ensure that the authority must not exhibit any vindictive approach towards the student-opposite party no.2. It is the act of vindictiveness of the authority that was ventilated before the learned Special Judge. (6) Mr. Swapan Kumar Mallick, learned advocate appearing for the State of West Bengal supports the argument of Mr. Majumder and submits that the learned Judge had exceeded his jurisdiction in passing the order impugned dated 10th of December, 2008. (7) Upon hearing the learned advocates for the parties it clearly appears that the IIT, Kharagpur on the recommendation of the Standing Disciplinary Committee of the Institute approved outright expulsion of the opposite party no. 2 from the Institute with effect from 21st of October, 2008 for possession of hallucinogenic drugs and being remanded to judicial custody. It is plain that it was not the learned Special Judge who granted bail who should be approached by the opposite party no. 2 for staying the operation of order of expulsion from the Institute. The learned Judge, Special Court granting bail definitely exceeded his jurisdiction in directing the IIT, Kharagpur to permit the opposite party no. 2 to continue his studies and to admit him at the Institute. The observation of the learned Judge that the Registrar, IIT or the Director, IIT, Kharagpur exceeded their jurisdiction is ex facie, illegal, warranting immediate setting aside the order. It is the authority who shall consider whether the petitioner should be given a chance to complete his studies or not. The court granting bail has no business to assume the jurisdiction over the internal affairs of the IIT, Kharagpur and it is not understood how such order could be passed by a bail court. Rightly, it has been submitted by Mr. Majumder that if the petitioner has any grievance he may ventilate his grievance before his authority in the Institute and it was the Institute who is alone competent to deal with his own student in accordance with their Rules and Regulations. (8) In the circumstance, application is allowed. The order no. 4 dated 10th of December, 2008 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court in the NDPS Act, Paschim Medinipur in NDPS Case No. 05 of 2008 is set aside. (8) In the circumstance, application is allowed. The order no. 4 dated 10th of December, 2008 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court in the NDPS Act, Paschim Medinipur in NDPS Case No. 05 of 2008 is set aside. (9) A copy of the order shall be communicated to the Special Judge under NDPS Act, Paschim Medinipur for information and necessary action. A plain copy of the order shall be made available to both the parties.