JUDGMENT By Court - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The appellant is aggrieved against the order dated 25th March, 2011 passed in W.P.(C)No.1070 of 2011, by which writ petition of the petitioner has been dismissed and in addition to above the learned Single Judge has doubled the penalty amount. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it is true that there was a decision of the Committee, not to admit the students who are having less than 60% marks, but the petitionerappellant admitted the students provisionally, in view of the fact that one writ petition was filed in the High Court in the name of All India Association of Technical & Professional Institutions Vrs. State of Jharkhand and ors. reported in 2009 JCR, 591(Jhr.) and ultimately in that writ petition, it has been held that the Committee had no jurisdiction to prescribe the minimum marks for admission and, therefore, subsequently the admission given by the writ petitioner below the marks of 60% was found to be valid. However, Committee was of the view that at the time when admission was given to the students, the committee's decision was there and it was valid and admission was given against the Committee's decision and, therefore, imposed a fine at the rate of Rs.5,000/per students, totaling Rs.1,65,000/. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant bonafidely admitted the students and it was made clear to each and every students that their admission is provisional and shall be subject to the decision in the said writ petition. It is also submitted that in the letter given to the students, it was clearly mentioned that the students are not falling within the category of students, who have secured 60% marks or above marks. In view of the above reasons, the imposition of penalty was improper and unjust. It is also submitted that in the letter given to the students, it was clearly mentioned that the students are not falling within the category of students, who have secured 60% marks or above marks. In view of the above reasons, the imposition of penalty was improper and unjust. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that it appears that the Committee and the learned Single Judge, both influenced by the allegations levelled against the appellant by the rival group, who levelled allegation of interpolation in the copies of the marksheets of the students to justify their admission and that fact has not been adjudged by the Committee while imposing penalty upon the writ petitionerappellant on the ground that they are not in a position to adjudge this issue whether the manipulation in the marksheet was done and if done, who did it. In view of the above reason, once the Committee itself did not decide about the manipulation in the marksheet of the student, then there was no justification for imposition of the penalty upon the Institute. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the learned Single Judge also committed error of law by increasing the penalty amount to double amount of penalty for no reason. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that on the allegation, an enquiry was conducted and in that enquiry, it was found that marksheets of the students, whose names figure at serial nos. 9 to 31, have been scanned and thereafter marks were increased to show as 60% marks. There are other manipulations also. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that as the enquiry report was not accepted by the Committee , nor it was given to the appellantwrit petitioner, therefore, on this basis no penalty could have been imposed. 5. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the facts on record as well as supplementary affidavit, which has been filed by the appellant in response to the order dated 14th June, 2012, by which the appellant was directed to submit the list, which was submitted by the appellant to the Committee , so as to find out whether facts were disclosed by the appellant to the Committee in time and before giving admissions and whether any fact was suppressed by the petitioner from the Committee or not. 6. 6. We are of the considered opinion that this fact cannot be disputed by the writ petitionerappellant that when admissions were given to the students, then those admissions were given in violation of the instruction issued by the Committee. However, subsequently those directions were found to be illegal and without jurisdiction as the committee had no power to fix the cut off marks. 7. Be that as it may, at the time when admissions were given, there was no order of the High Court quashing the committee's decision. Therefore, it was a case of giving admission in violation of the committee's decision. So far letters given to the students are concerned, certainly from those letters it appears that the appellant might have informed the students that such students have not requisite 60% marks and their admission is provisional. But from the letter, which has been given to the Committee, copy of which has been placed along with supplementary affidavit and list annexed with that letter dated th November, 2008, it appears that the Committee was not apprised that students to whom admission were given, secured less than 60% marks or they had secured 60% marks or above marks. It was the duty of the appellant to disclose in the letter dated 30th November, 2008 itself that the appellant has given admission to the students, who have secured less marks than 60% and admissions were given provisional, though it is mentioned in the letter dated 30th November, 2008 that students have been admitted provisionally. This phraseology may indicate that all students have been admitted provisionally, including the students who have secured more than 60% marks . This will further fortified from the subsequent letter dated 1st December, 2008, wherein the appellant has disclosed the name of the students, who have secured more than 60% marks, who are nine in numbers only and the total number of the students admitted by the appellant are 42. Therefore, in these facts and circumstances, the Committee has imposed a penalty. 8. It will be relevant to mention here that the respondents placed on record the report of the enquiry Committee, which prima facie indicate manipulation in the marksheet. Therefore, in equitable jurisdiction, the appellant is not entitled to any relief. Therefore, in these facts and circumstances, the Committee has imposed a penalty. 8. It will be relevant to mention here that the respondents placed on record the report of the enquiry Committee, which prima facie indicate manipulation in the marksheet. Therefore, in equitable jurisdiction, the appellant is not entitled to any relief. However, if any criminal case is pending, in that case, the matter can be examined by the Court and that can be done without being influenced by any observation of the Committee or by the learned Single Judge or by us in this order. 9. We are of the considered opinion that there was no justification for asking the writ petitionerappellant to pay double the amount of penalty than the amount which has been imposed by the Committee. Therefore, that part of the impugned order is set aside and with regard to rest of the issues, we do not find any merit in the Letters Patent Appeal. 10. Thus, the Letters Patent Appeal is partly allowed by deleting the penalty imposed by the learned Single Judge.