JUDGMENT B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner no.1 a Public Trust and petitioner no.2 College run by it, challenge the order dated 25.10.2012, cancelling permanently the recognition granted to the petitioner no.2 College under the provisions of Maharashtra Animal and Fishery Sciences University Act, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1998 Act” for short), by taking recourse to its Section 38 and 2006 Rules framed thereunder. This Court issued notice on 11.02.2013. The respondent no.1 University, respondent no.2 Vice Chancellor and respondent no.3 Dean have filed their reply on 16.07.2013. Looking to the nature of controversy and with their consent, we have heard the Writ Petition finally, by issuing Rule, making it returnable forthwith. 2. Shri M.G. Bhangde, learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioner no.2 College got initial recognition in the year 2002-03 and it was continued till 2010-11, on year to year basis. By order dated 01.07.2010, the said recognition has been given for the period of three years from 2010-11 onwards. During this period on 24.08.2012, a show cause notice was issued by the respondent no.3 with approval of respondent no.2, calling upon petitioner to explain why its recognition should not be cancelled. Reply was accordingly submitted on 03.09.2012, pointing out the incorrectness in the show cause notice. In spite of this, by the impugned communication dated 25.10.2012, the recognition has been permanently cancelled. 3. Shri Bhangde, learned Senior Counsel submits that after receipt of this adverse order, petitioners submitted an application under Right to Information Act, and were then supplied a copy of enquiry report. The enquiry report is signed by 4 persons as Members thereof, and it shows that on 16.06.2012, an enquiry was conducted in the college of petitioners. Petitioners did not have any previous intimation of said visit or enquiry. Hence, its Principal was not available and 13 students who were supposed to be made available, were also not present. The enquiry conducted on 16.06.2012 is, therefore, assailed as denying effective opportunity and in breach of principles of natural justice. He has further invited attention to the show cause notice and lacunae pointed out therein as also reply dated 03.09.2012 explaining the same. He argues that this reply and material supplied with it, does not find any consideration by the respondents, while passing the impugned order. He has further invited attention to the show cause notice and lacunae pointed out therein as also reply dated 03.09.2012 explaining the same. He argues that this reply and material supplied with it, does not find any consideration by the respondents, while passing the impugned order. He has invited our attention to the proceedings of meeting of Academic Council dated 04.09.2012 to show that the said meeting also does not look into relevant details and defence. The consequential resolution of Executive Council is also challenged urging that in its 56th Meeting held on 03.10.2012, the Executive Council also mechanically accepts the recommendation of the Academic Council. He, in this background, has invited our attention to procedure prescribed in Section 38 of the 1998 Act to urge that the motion for de-recognition was never initiated or then processed as contemplated therein. Impugned action is, therefore, illegal and liable to be set aside. He points out that the grounds in support of de-recognition are required to be “stated” by the Management Council and then the Executive Council has to “decide”. By taking support from judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported at 1994 Supp (2) SCC 1 (Mohammad Jafar vrs. Union of India), he submits that these requirements are not satisfied in present matters and hence, the impugned action is void. 4. Inviting attention to Rule 16 of 2006 Rules, the learned Senior Counsel urges that the written examination has to be conducted under the supervision of a Senior Invigilator nominated by the respondent no.1 University. The examination was conducted accordingly on 09.05.2012. The alleged irregularity or malpractice in the examination was not reported by the invigilator or the examination superintendent appointed by the respondent no.1 University. Rule 21 casts obligation on these officers to conduct exam properly and it is their duty to take effective steps to prevent any mischief. Rule 21 mandates that such invigilator should in that event, seize the objectionable material; record statement of student/s involved and then hand it over to the center in-charge of the examination center. If large number of such candidates are found to have indulged in use of unfair means, entire examination on that date, in that event can be cancelled. He submits that the alleged illegality is in respect of 13 students. Total 59 students appeared for the examination and 46 students have passed. If large number of such candidates are found to have indulged in use of unfair means, entire examination on that date, in that event can be cancelled. He submits that the alleged illegality is in respect of 13 students. Total 59 students appeared for the examination and 46 students have passed. He has shown to Court the result sheet issued by the University in this respect. This result sheet is not on record, however, it was shown to Shri Patil, learned Counsel for respondents. Shri Patil, learned Counsel, upon instructions, did not dispute its correctness. Shri Bhangde, learned Senior Counsel submits that the visit of flying squad on 09.05.2012 or then visit of enquiry committee on 16.06.2012, are therefore irrelevant and immaterial. According to him, if any adverse action on the basis of said material was to be taken against the petitioners, same ought to have been only in accordance to Section 38, and after making the entire material available to petitioners. As that has not been done, the action is unsustainable. 5. Our attention has been invited to alleged discrimination practiced. The marks allotted by a Committee after inspection in 2012-13 to various colleges in Nagpur region, are shown to this Court. It is pointed out that the petitioner has been given 52 marks, while others have been given 29.5, 29.5 and 28 marks. But then, those who have secured less marks have been permitted to continue with suspension for only one year and the institute of petitioners only has been permanently de-recognized. Our attention has also been invited to similar instances in other region, namely Aurangabad region to show that where the institute was given only three marks, it has been derecognized only for one year. In Ahmednagar region, the institute was given 26 marks and it was not given recognition only for one year i.e. 2012-13. Learned Counsel submits that in this background, when for more severe irregularities, other colleges have been visited with a comparatively lesser punishment or a mild disciplinary measure is taken, hence, permanent de-recognition in case of petitioner is unwarranted and arbitrary. He further states that all these colleges in Parbhani, Ahmednagar and Nagpur region have been re-granted recognition in the year 2013-14. The only reason for not extending similar treatment to petitioners, appears to be visit of flying squad on 09.05.2012. He further states that all these colleges in Parbhani, Ahmednagar and Nagpur region have been re-granted recognition in the year 2013-14. The only reason for not extending similar treatment to petitioners, appears to be visit of flying squad on 09.05.2012. Learned Senior Counsel submits that as on that date Shri Gourkhede, appointed by the University to supervise the examination, was in-charge, the petitioners cannot be made to suffer for any negligence or omission on its part. 6. He contends that because of de-recognition order on 25.10.2010, petitioners could not apply for extension of/or continuation of recognition in the year 2012-13, with the result, their college was closed during that year. Hence, the punishment as imposed on above mentioned other institutions, is already undergone by the petitioners, therefore, the petitioners must be restored recognition for the year 2013-14 and must be permitted to function. He has relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported at (2003) 1SCC 726 (Beg Raj Singh .vrs. State of U.P. and others), to substantiate this contention. 7. Shri Patil, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents, submits that the petitioners have got an alternative remedy under Section 14 of the 1998 and they can approach the Hon'ble Chancellor before whom the appeals filed by some other institutes are already pending. 8. Without prejudice, he points out that the impugned order has come into force on 25.10.2012. Recognition for the year 2013 given to the petitioners on 01.07.2010 expired at the end of the academic session 2012-13. The petitioners did not apply for continuation of that recognition in the year 2012-13 and hence, recognition cannot now be bestowed upon them for the year 2013-14. 9. He has invited attention to prayer clause of Writ Petition to urge that it does not challenge the resolution either of Academic Council or the Executive Council and hence, the petition is without any merit and is liable to be dismissed. 10. Coming to Scheme of Section 38, learned Counsel submits that, before this Court, various grounds based upon it have been taken for the first time. The factual matrix was never questioned in reply to show cause notice dated 17.04.2012 and hence, contents of enquiry report must be presumed to have been admitted. He, in this background, submits that the Section 38 has been fully complied with and hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 11. The factual matrix was never questioned in reply to show cause notice dated 17.04.2012 and hence, contents of enquiry report must be presumed to have been admitted. He, in this background, submits that the Section 38 has been fully complied with and hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 11. In reply arguments, Shri Bhangde, learned Senior Counsel submits that as petitioner no.2 College was derecognized on 25.10.2012, it could not have submitted any application for continuation of recognition before 31.10.2012. He relies upon a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported at (2009) 14 SCC 338 (Godrej Sara Lee Limited .vrs. Assistant Commissioner (AA) and another), to urge that the operative order passed on the strength of illegal resolutions has been questioned before this Court and all necessary reliefs in relation thereto have been asked. The grounds raised in the Writ Petition contain challenge the resolutions also, and hence, technical objection on the ground of absence of a specific prayer is, misconceived. 12. Absence of prior intimation/prior notice before visit of the enquiry committee on 16.06.2012, is not in dispute and petitioners were never served with any enquiry report, even after passing of the impugned order. Breach of principles of natural justice and also breach of mandatory requirement of Section 38, is, therefore, admittedly proved. He relies upon a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported at (2012) 5 SCC 139 (National Council for Teacher Education and Another .vrs. Vaishnav Institute of Technology and Management), to submit that the Hon'ble Apex Court has found such de-recognition to be a drastic measure. According to the learned Senior Counsel, therefore, in this background, availability of alternative remedy cannot be a bar at all. 13. The visit of flying squad on 09.05.2012 is, not in dispute. A confidential note signed by three members has been produced before this Court as Annexure-I by respondents along with their reply. The reply states that on the basis of this inspection, charges were leveled against the petitioner. The charges are framed against the petitioners for the first time through show cause notice dated 24.08.2012. This show cause notice mentions visit of flying squad and discovery of some irregularities by it. It then mentions that a three member enquiry committee was constituted and that enquiry committee has found 4 irregularities. Those irregularities are appointing Mr. The charges are framed against the petitioners for the first time through show cause notice dated 24.08.2012. This show cause notice mentions visit of flying squad and discovery of some irregularities by it. It then mentions that a three member enquiry committee was constituted and that enquiry committee has found 4 irregularities. Those irregularities are appointing Mr. Sukhdeve, as Principal, though not qualified; Not conducting examinations properly; Not preventing students from indulging in use of unfair means and permitting impersonation by allowing 13 strangers to appear and solve answer papers. The show cause notice also mentions that report of another Committee constituted for considering question of grant of re-recognition or its de-recognition for the year 2012-13, is also received and that irregularities or lacunae noticed by the later enquiry committee are also enumerated. This show cause notice is issued by the Dean i.e. the respondent no.3. Petitioners have replied to this show cause notice on 03.09.2012. They have mentioned that person with requisite qualification was not becoming available in rural area, and hence, Shri Sukhdeve, not holding due qualification came to be appointed, and he had about 10 years experience of working as Principal. In so far as the second charge about not conducting the examination properly is concerned, it has been denied with assurances that examinations were conducted and will be conducted in accordance with law. About 09.05.2012 visit of flying squad, reply states that External Examiner Dr. Ramesh Gourkhede, appointed by the University was very much present and nothing wrong transpired on that date. Alleged appearance of 13 bogus students, is also denied. The reply then deals with lacunae noticed by the committee for considering the issue of recognition, one by one and asserts that there are no lacunae. About 20 photographs are also appended to this reply to show the infrastructure and other facilities available with the petitioner no.2. 14. Perusal of the proceedings of 24th Meeting of the Academic Council held on 04.09.2012, reveals that the question of de-recognition has been looked into vide subject no.15/2012. The Accreditation Committee had submitted report recommending 24 institutions/schools as not eligible for recognition for the year 2012-13; 11 schools with short staff and staff problems and 4 school against whom inquiries were going on. All these 39 schools were served with show cause notice, giving them time of 7 days. The Accreditation Committee had submitted report recommending 24 institutions/schools as not eligible for recognition for the year 2012-13; 11 schools with short staff and staff problems and 4 school against whom inquiries were going on. All these 39 schools were served with show cause notice, giving them time of 7 days. Names of these 39 institutions do not figure either in the text of subject or text of resolution. The resolution as recorded, does not show even mention of any reply sent by any of these 39 institutions. The last sentence of a short paragraph appearing after subject no.14 reads “After going through each and every case and thorough discussion, the following resolution is passed unanimously.” The resolution is small and the Academic Council has straightway recommended to the Executive Council, to grant re-recognition to 75 lower education diploma schools. Matter resolved by it in Annexure-II is also recommended to the Executive Council for its action. This document at Annexure-II contains recommendations of Academic Council on grant of recognition, de-recognition etc. There, in second column, names of institutes appear and against it, in next column action proposed by the Academic Council is stipulated. The name of petitioner no.2 College appears at Sr. No.4 in this Annexure-II. The action recommended is, as per recommendation of the enquiry committee, permanent de-recognition of petitioner Institution, as per Section 38 of the 1998 Act read with Rule 5 of the 2006 Rules. This action is recommended by the Academic Council to the Executive Council on 04.09.2012. 56th Meeting of the Executive Council conducted on 03.10.2012 then looks into these recommendations. The subject of recognition and de-recognition is looked into vide Subject no.30/2012. Resolution at the end of the subject mentions that after through discussion on the subject, the Executive Council accepted the recommendation of the Academic Council. Effective resolution reads as under - “Resolution 30/2012. On the recommendation of Academic Council, the Executive Council accords it approval to grant re-recognition to the lower education diploma schools for the academic year 2012-13 as per Annexure-I, grant of re-recognition for the academic year 2012-13 subject to the fulfillment of conditions within one month as per Annexure-II, suspended for recognition for the academic year 2012-13 as per Annexure-III and derecognized permanently as per Annexure-IV.” In said Annexure-IV with these proceedings, at Sr.No.3 name of petitioner institution appears. The Executive Council has thus accepted the recommendation and cancelled recognition permanently. 15. Thus, neither the resolution passed by the Academic Council, nor the resolution passed by the Executive Council i.e. proceedings of both these committees mentions even the reply filed by the petitioners on 03.09.2012. The contents of said reply are also not looked into, and unilaterally the decision appears to have been taken casually by the Academic Council to recommend, de-recognition. The Executive Council has acted equally mechanically and accepted it. Section 38 of the 1998 Act, is on the subject of withdrawal of recognition. The scheme therein shows that as per its sub-section [1], final decision in this respect needs to be taken by the Executive Council, if the institution has failed to observe any of the conditions of recommendation or if the institution has been conducted in a manner which is prejudicial to the interest of education or research. Motion for such withdrawal must be initiated only in Academic Council. A Member of the council who intends to move such a motion is obliged to give its notice and has to state in writing the grounds to support it. Before taking such motion for consideration, the Academic Council has to send copy of the notice and written statement, mentioned in sub-section [2] to petitioner with intimation that it can also file reply to the same within a specified period. As per sub-section [4] of Section 38, after receipt of such reply/representation or after expiry of period specified therefor, the Academic Council has to consider the notice of motion, grounds stated in its support and reply(if any), and thereafter find out the suitable action to be taken in the matter. If the Academic Council finds that the action for withdrawal or suspension of recognition is necessary, it has to pass a resolution for that purpose “stating” its grounds for such withdrawal or suspension and make a recommendation to that effect to the Executive Council. After receipt of such recommendation by the Academic Council, the Executive Council can conduct further inquiry, if it finds it necessary and than “decide” whether the recognition should be withdrawn or should be suspended for a specified period. 16. Here as already noted by us, the show cause notice dated 24.08.2012 is sent by the respondent no.3 with approval of respondent no.2. 16. Here as already noted by us, the show cause notice dated 24.08.2012 is sent by the respondent no.3 with approval of respondent no.2. It does not show that before issuing that show cause notice, a motion was sought to be moved or moved in the Academic Council and hence, Section 38[2] has been violated. If such notice of motion is received by the Academic Council, it is for the Academic Council to send show cause notice to petitioner. The Academic Council is constituted under Section 29 of the 1998 Act. As per Section 29[2], Registrar of the University is the Ex-officio Secretary of the Academic Council. Hence, if a notice of motion along with a written statement containing grounds in its support is moved before the Academic Council, it is the Registrar of the Academic Council who is competent to forward the show cause notice about the same to the petitioners. That requirement also is, therefore, not fulfilled in the present matter. The show cause notice issued by the respondent no.3, is received by the petitioners on 29.08.2012 and they were given time of 7 days from the said date to reply to it. They have submitted their reply by hand within time i.e. on 03.09.2012. We have already mentioned above that the proceedings either of Academic Council or then of Executive Council fail to take any cognizance of said reply. Sub-section [4] of Section 38 obliges the Academic Council to consider the notice of motion, grounds recorded in support of that notice by proposer of motion and reply to it. After considering all this, the Academic Council has then to consider the action to be taken. Thus, Section 38[4] enables the Academic Council to pass a resolution indicating further course of action, if necessary, in the matter, if it is not satisfied with the reply received. Only after the Academic Council finds that action of withdrawal or suspension or recognition is necessary, it can, by passing appropriate resolution and mentioning course of action proposed by it, recommend it to the Executive Council. Thus, the Academic Council has to apply its mind before deciding whether any action of either withdrawal of recognition or suspension of recognition is necessary. If it finds that either of such measure is necessary, it can choose between the two and pass a resolution recommending it to the Executive Council. Thus, the Academic Council has to apply its mind before deciding whether any action of either withdrawal of recognition or suspension of recognition is necessary. If it finds that either of such measure is necessary, it can choose between the two and pass a resolution recommending it to the Executive Council. This resolution of recommendation also has to contain grounds which weighed with Academic Council to choose a particular course of action. If such resolution and recommendation is received by the Executive Council, the Executive Council has to decide whether the recommendation should or should not be withdrawn or should be suspended for a specified period. Looking to the serious implications flowing from such a decision, it has also been empowered to conduct a further inquiry also, if felt necessary, before taking it. Thus, again while taking final decision, Section 38[5] confers wide powers and discretion upon the Executive Council, and therefore only the Executive Council has been empowered to hold further enquiry, if it finds the same necessary. It is obvious that the Executive Council therefore, has to look into the motion and grounds in support of that motion placed before the Academic Council, reply submitted by the petitioners thereto and then proceedings of the Academic Council, disclosing its application of mind to the same. The grounds stated by the Academic Council for recommending a particular course of action are also, therefore, required to be noted by the Executive Council. It is thereafter only that the Executive Council can take a suitable decision under Section 38[5]. 17. Perusal of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohammad Jafar .vrs. Union of India (supra), reveals that there the proviso to sub-section [3] of Section 3 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 has been looked into. The said proviso mandates reasons to be stated in writing. This requirement is looked into in paragraph nos. 11 and 12 of the said judgment. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that “expression 'to state' has a distinct connotation of informing the party for whom the statement is meant.” It is held that no one makes a statement to himself. Reasons recorded in the file are not the reasons which are stated for benefit of an aggrieved party. 11 and 12 of the said judgment. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that “expression 'to state' has a distinct connotation of informing the party for whom the statement is meant.” It is held that no one makes a statement to himself. Reasons recorded in the file are not the reasons which are stated for benefit of an aggrieved party. Though the words “to state” have been interpreted in the background of a penal legislation, in present facts, the action for de-recognition is also a grave and severe measure. The elaborate Scheme under Section 38 and application of mind by the respective authorities at various stages mandated therein aim at safeguarding the interests of the party proceeded against, and hence, need to be adhered to scrupulously. The person who initiates the motion is, required to state grounds in support of his motion and, lastly the Academic Council is also required to state grounds which persuaded it to adopt a particular course of action. The Executive Council has then been obliged “to decide”. Thus, appreciation of material coming on record, conscious election of the particular course and commensurate nature of measure evolved by the Academic Council must be perceived while reading its proceedings. This application of mind must be apparent and there should be no need to delve into the records to comprehend it. The same holds good even for the Executive Council as it has to “decide” on the basis of mind applied by the Academic Council. The proceedings of Academic Council or the Executive Council noted by us above do not contain any such application of mind and fail to meet these standards and requirements. Thus, Section 38 of 1998 Act has been observed in breach, in present facts. 18. The show cause notice issue to the present petitioner is not in accordance with law, as Section 38[2] contemplates a motion prior thereto and such motion must be initiated only in Academic Council. How the motion can be initiated is again a moot question. There will obviously be a proposer and then a seconder to it to enable one to say that the motion is moved. After such motion is moved, it is the Academic Council which has to send its copy to the petitioner. Here the respondent no.3 has not followed that course of action. There will obviously be a proposer and then a seconder to it to enable one to say that the motion is moved. After such motion is moved, it is the Academic Council which has to send its copy to the petitioner. Here the respondent no.3 has not followed that course of action. Merely because he is Member of Academic Council, he is not authorized to issue show cause notice. There is no question of such show cause notice being approved by the respondent no.2 Vice Chancellor. This show cause notice does not contain any reference to visit on 16.06.2012 or any statement of students recorded by the enquiry committee on said date. The fact that the petitioners did not have any advance intimation of visit of said committee for enquiry on 16.06.2012 is not in dispute. The fact that 13 students who allegedly did not participate in the examination on 09.05.2012, also did not have such notice, is also not denied by the respondents. The petitioners were not aware of the enquiry report of said committee and they have received it only under Right to Information Act, that too after the impugned order. Thus, procedural as also elementary principles of natural justice have been violated in present matter. Hence, even on that ground we find the impugned action unsustainable. 19. The respondents have filed additional submissions/reply on 02.08.2013. Along with it, they have given a document as Annexure-R-VIII, which is in terms of Clause (IV) of the 2006 Regulations on the subject of recognition. It stipulates that recognized institutes have to submit necessary fees for deciding their merit every year by 31st October. If the petitioners needed continuation of their recognition for 2013-14, they were expected to pay that amount by 31st October, 2012. As already mentioned supra, petitioners were recognized till 2012-13. Because of permanent de-recognition on 25.10.2012, petitioners could not pay that amount. There is no provision and none has been pointed out to us, which enables a derecognized institute like petitioners, to pay the charges for judging its performance. Contention of respondents that petitioners therefore, ought to have applied for said purpose before 31st October, 2012 is erroneous and misconceived. 20. The petition in its prayer (i), seeks relief of quashing the impugned action dated 25.10.2012 and seeks a direction to respondents to restore and continue the recognition granted to the petitioner no.2 Institute. Contention of respondents that petitioners therefore, ought to have applied for said purpose before 31st October, 2012 is erroneous and misconceived. 20. The petition in its prayer (i), seeks relief of quashing the impugned action dated 25.10.2012 and seeks a direction to respondents to restore and continue the recognition granted to the petitioner no.2 Institute. The relief is wide, and if the impugned order dated 25.10.2012 which emanates from recommendations of the Academic Council and decision of Executive Council is set aside, it is apparent that the said recommendation and consequential action can not stand. That recommendation of Academic Council and decision of the Executive Council is in the form of a resolution which is not operative till implemented. When the implementation or execution itself is set aside, the resolutions cannot stand independently, and cannot cause any prejudice to the petitioners. The judgment reported in the case of Godrej Sara Lee Limited .vrs. Assistant Commissioner (AA) and another (supra), shows that when there was no specific prayer in relation to notification that it should be declared as ultra vires or illegal, but, a ground specifically in that respect was pleaded, the Hon'ble Apex Court has found such plea/ground sufficient to declare the notification bad. The said logic is squarely applicable in present facts. 21. Section 14 of the 1998 Act, enables the Hon'ble Governor in capacity as Chancellor to take cognizance of present dispute. But then in present facts, we are not inclined to dismiss the writ petition only on that ground. (2012) 5 SCC 139 (National Council for Teacher Education and another .vrs. Vaishnav Institute of Technology and Management), is the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court which finds de-recognition or withdrawal of recognition a drastic measure. It results in dislocating the students, teachers and staff. In view of findings reached above, we are not inclined to accept the contention of respondents that present petition should not be entertained because alternative remedy is available. 22. This brings us to the question of relief to be granted to the petitioners. The petitioners have urged that total 59 students appeared for examination in May, 2012 and 46 out of them have succeeded. Dispute raised by the respondents is about 13 students. Visit by the flying squad of respondents on 09.05.2012 to the petitioners during said examination is not in dispute. The petitioners have urged that total 59 students appeared for examination in May, 2012 and 46 out of them have succeeded. Dispute raised by the respondents is about 13 students. Visit by the flying squad of respondents on 09.05.2012 to the petitioners during said examination is not in dispute. The said flying squad has found that 13 students were not present, but, then their answer papers, solved incompletely, were available in the examination hall. Flying squad then inquired with the external examiner Shri Gotmare as also other students present in the hall about them and they disclosed that all those 13 students were absent. The flying squad then verified the answer papers of these 13 students in relation to the examination conducted on earlier day i.e., 08.05.2012. The answer papers perused were of written examination and practical examination. The flying squad has recorded that hand writings of same roll numbers in answer sheets found incomplete on 09.05.2012, and on answer sheets solved on 08.05.2012, did not match. The petitioners have urged before us that the entire responsibility was that of the external examiner Shri Gotmare. In their reply to the show cause notice, the petitioners have stated that there was no such misconduct or irregularity. We are not recording at this stage any definite finding in this respect. 23. Further material in relation to these 13 students has come on record in the shape of an enquiry report. The said enquiry report is undated and it became available to petitioners for the first time after the impugned order. They were not given opportunity to assail it. This document, at least as of now, is not binding on petitioners. But, then visit of said enquiry committee on 16.06.2012 is again not in dispute. On 16.06.2012, Principal of college was absent. The Director of the Institute Arun Motghare, could not supply necessary information to the enquiry committee. Members of the enquiry committee then visited the residents of those 13 students and attempted to obtain their written statement. Committee could get written statements from 4 students. Those 4 students accepted that they did not appear for the examination. Again, though we are not recording any finding on its correctness, this material on record supports the observations of flying squad after visit on 09.05.2012. Committee could get written statements from 4 students. Those 4 students accepted that they did not appear for the examination. Again, though we are not recording any finding on its correctness, this material on record supports the observations of flying squad after visit on 09.05.2012. If answer sheets not fully solved were found in the examination hall on 09.05.2012, or then hand writing of some students in answer sheet on two consequential dates do not match, it is very grave situation warranting an appropriate enquiry into the matter. Shri Bhangde, learned Senior Counsel has urged that the Academic Council or the Executive Council has not even attempted to match or compare the hand writings. This argument is not decisive at this stage. Reply submitted on 03.09.2012 to the show cause notice is by Principal, who has denied any such malpractice or misconduct. He added that being unwell, he was absent during the examination and one Babulal Ramteke was instructed about the procedure. If said Babulal Ramteke did commit any error, the Principal has assured not to repeat it in future. In ground “O” in memo of the Writ Petition, the petitioners have pleaded that on 09.05.2012 at about 11.30 A.M., 13 students out of total 59 students had already left the examination hall. It is submitted by the petitioners that as 1 ½ hour was already over after starting of the examination, Examination Rules permit students to leave. Hence, in petition, the petitioners have accepted that on 09.05.2012, 13 half solved or incompletely answered answer-papers were available in the examination hall. 24. In view of this prima facie consideration, we are not inclined to permit the petitioners to start their institution again without proper further enquiry and verification as envisaged by law. Though, it has been demonstrated that the institutions which have been given less marks in the inspection were imposed lesser punishment and, their recognition was suspended only for a period of one year and those institutes have been permitted to reopen in 2013-14, Article 14 of the Constitution of India is not attracted in this situation. There cannot be any equality in such matters. We are not in position to compare and hold that the petitioners are/were similarly and equally placed on all relevant counts qua these other institutions. There cannot be any equality in such matters. We are not in position to compare and hold that the petitioners are/were similarly and equally placed on all relevant counts qua these other institutions. Even if the other institutions also may have indulged in similar misconducts in examination or administration, we cannot accept such an argument and direct the University to treat petitioners similarly. Leniency, if permissible, can be shown only after facts crystallize and need to punish surfaces. It can not be a means to avoid the fact finding inquiry. Here, a Commerce postgraduate has continued as a Principal for several years and the University has avoided to record any finding about it. Said principal has prima-facie, remained absent at two important junctures. If same be the position in all Schools/Institutions, it may cast a shadow on state of affairs and working of Respondent 1 University itself, necessitating a suitable inquiry. 25. We find that the respondents ought to have acted strictly in accordance with the provisions of Section 38 in the matter. Why they have breached the said provision or have they shown any undue favour to the petitioners is not understood. Law and public interest both demand that the respondents should be more diligent in such matters. We find the respondents at fault for violating the mandate of Section 38 of the 1998 Act. 26. In view of these findings, though we quash and set aside the impugned order dated 25.10.2012, the resolution of the Executive Council dated 03.10.2012 and also the resolution of the Academic Council dated 04.09.2012, we do not permit the petitioners to restart their college. 27. We direct the respondent no.1 University to initiate and hold appropriate enquiry into the matter in accordance with the provisions of Section 38 of the 1998 Act, and thereafter to decide whether the petitioners are at fault or not and if answer to this is yes, proceed to decide whether the recognition of petitioners should be or should not be permanently withdrawn or suspended. Similarly we direct the respondent no.1 to hold an enquiry into its own conduct and find out the persons/officers responsible for flouting the provisions of Section 38 of the 1998 Act in such grave matters. These exercises shall be completed within a period of 6 months from today. Similarly we direct the respondent no.1 to hold an enquiry into its own conduct and find out the persons/officers responsible for flouting the provisions of Section 38 of the 1998 Act in such grave matters. These exercises shall be completed within a period of 6 months from today. If the respondent no.1 find it necessary to give petitioners an opportunity to file reply, it is free to do so. The respondent nos. 1 and 2 shall forward the outcome of both these exercises to the office of the Hon'ble Governor of State of Maharashtra, in his capacity as Hon'ble Chancellor of respondent no1 University, in view of Section 14 of the 1998 Act. 28. Registry to forward copy of this judgment to the office of the Hon'ble Chancellor for use of said office. 29. In view of above discussion, Writ Petition is, partly allowed. Rule is accordingly made absolute in the aforesaid terms. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost.