JUDGMENT By the Court.—In the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order of Consumer Protection Forum, Azamgarh dated 7.10.1994 and also the complaint dated 27.8.1993 made by respondent No. 1. 2. We have heard Sri Ajit Kumar Singh, lerned counsel for the petitioners University and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 3. No one has entered appearance on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 despite notice. In view of office report dated 4.1.2001 service of notice on the said respondents is deemed to b sufficient under Rule 12, Explanation II of Chapter VIII of the Rules of the Court. 3. It appears that respondent No. 2 was a student of M.A. (Urdu) of Shibli National Post Graduate College, Kazi Gaus Alam, Azamgarh, affiliated to Purvanchal University, Jaunpur. She appeared in M.A. (Urdu) Examination from the aforesaid College and was shown to have passed with Second Division, though in the University records it was shown that she has obtained marks of First Division. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the University petitioner that as per University record she has secured 563 marks out of 900 but due to some technical error the Computer wrongly described that she has secured 563 marks out of 1000. Thus, the percentage of 563 marks out of 1000 being less than 60%, she was shown to have secured Second Division though the percentage should have been taken out of 900 which would come to more than 60%. 4. The respondent No. 1 being aggrieved approached the District Consumer Forum, Azamgarh by moving an application under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act on 27.8.1993. The District Consumer Forum by the impugned order dated 7.10.1994, awarded a compensation of Rs. 2000/- along with a cost of Rs. 200/-. Hence the aggrieved University preferred this petition. 5. 4. The respondent No. 1 being aggrieved approached the District Consumer Forum, Azamgarh by moving an application under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act on 27.8.1993. The District Consumer Forum by the impugned order dated 7.10.1994, awarded a compensation of Rs. 2000/- along with a cost of Rs. 200/-. Hence the aggrieved University preferred this petition. 5. Learned counsel for the University petitioner submitted that the mistake was not deliberate nor there was laches on the part of the University but the same has crept in due to technical error in the Computer and the University when learnt about it after notice from the Consumer Forum, immediately corrected the mark sheet given to respondent No. 2 showing that she has obtained 563 marks out of 900 and thus, she has cleared the examination with First Division.It is submitted that an objection regarding maintainability of the application under Section 12 of the Act before the Consumer Forum was also raised but the District Consumer Forum without deciding the same, allowed the application by the impugned order. Learned counsel further placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bihar School Examination Board v. Suresh Prasad Sinha, 2009(4) ESC 714 (SC) and also on a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 29610 of 2007, Bundelkhand University, Jhansi v. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. It is submitted that the Consumer Forum respondent No. 3 ought to have first decided the objection raised by the petitioner about the maintainability of complaint before it but instead the respondent No. 3 passed the impugned order without considering the objection and thus, the same cannot sustain. 6. Nobody appeared on behalf of respondent No. 1, the claimant before the District Consumer Forum and respondent No. 2, Principal of the institution in question. The District Consumer Forum is represented by the Standing Counsel. 7. The question as to whether the activity of the University or the Examination Board can be presumed to be commercial activity and hence covered under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, is no more res integra and is concluded by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bihar School Examination Board v. Suresh Prasad Sinha (supra), In the aforesaid case the District Consumer Forum awarded compensation of Rs. 12000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% to the complainant Suresh Prasad Sinha and the appeal preferred by the Bihar School Examination Board before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and further appeal before the National Consumer Commission under Section 19of the Act were dismissed. The matter was thereafter taken to the Apex Court and the issue involved was as to whether the statutory School Examination Board comes within the purview of Consumer Protection Act or not. Their Lordships after considering the definition of ‘service’ and ‘deficiency’ in clauses (o) and (g) of Section 2 of the Act and also looking to the fact that the Board was conducting the examination in discharge of its statutory function, held that the examinee or the student who undertakes examination is not a consumer and thus, the complaint against the Board or the examining body under the Act is not maintainable. The relevant part of the judgment is extracted hereinbelow : “The object of the Act is to cover in its net, services offered or rendered for a consideration. Any service rendered for a consideration is presumed to be a commercial activity in its broadest sense (including professional activity or quasi commercial activity). But the Act does not intended to cover discharge of a statutory function of examining whether a candidate is fit to be declared as having successfully completed a course by passing the examination. The fact that in the course of conduct of the examination, or evaluation of answer scripts or furnishing of mark sheets or certificates, there may be some negligence, omission or deficiency, does not convert the Board into a service provider for a consideration, nor convert the examinee into a consumer who can make a complaint under the Act. We are clearly of the view that the Board is not a ‘service provider’ and a student who takes an examination is not a ‘consumer’ and consequently, complaint under the Act will not be maintainable against the Board.” 8. A Division Bench of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29610 of 2007, Bundelkhand University Jhansi v. Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, decided on 1.9.2008, also took the similar view. 9. In the instant case, admittedly, the University in discharge of its statutory function held the examination in which the petitioner appeared as examinee. A Division Bench of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29610 of 2007, Bundelkhand University Jhansi v. Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, decided on 1.9.2008, also took the similar view. 9. In the instant case, admittedly, the University in discharge of its statutory function held the examination in which the petitioner appeared as examinee. No material has been brought on record to show that the University deliberately has declared the petitioner to have passed in Second Division to extend favour to some other student. On the other hand, the University has come up with the plea that it was on account of technical error in the computer and while computing the total marks of the examinee, took the percentage out of 1000 instead of 900 and, therefore, though the petitioner secured more than 60% marks out of 900, yet she has been shown to have secured less than 60% out of 1000 and thus, placed her in Second Division. In the facts and circumstances, we are satisfied with the explanation of the University that the mistake was not deliberate. Besides that the respondent No. 1, the examinee not being a ‘consumer’ as per definition under the Act and the University not being ‘service provider’, they do not come within the purview of the Act, hence the impugned order being without jurisdiction, cannot sustain. 10. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 7.10.1994 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Azamgarh is accordingly, quashed. However,there shall be no order as to costs. ————