JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV) The school under the name of “Dafalakata Janajati High School”, PO Dafalakata is the petitioner in this case and is represented by its Headmaster and Secretary. The school is a provincialized High School and is located in the vicinity of some five High Schools, which are arraigned as respondents No. 8 to 12. After making assessment of the communication facilities and infrastructures available with the petitioner-school for smooth conduct of High School Leaving Certificate examinations, the Controller of Examinations, Board of Secondary Education, Assam (SEBA) issued the notification dated 21-11-2005 declaring the petitioner-school as the venue for HSLC/AHM examinations for the petitioner-school and the respondents No. 7 to 12. According to the petitioner, the school has been functioning as the said examination centre since 2005 without any complaint from any quarter: there had never been a single instance of malpractice or use of unfair means in the centre. The Cameraman, who was deputed by the SEBA to record any scene of unfair means/mass copying in the examination centre failed to do so. However, much its consternation, the respondent No. 2 on 30-6-2014 issued a show cause notice to the Officer-in-Charge of Dafalakata Examination Centre accusing the petitioner-school of involvement in large-scale malpractice and use of unfair means during the examination held between 13-2-2014 to 6-3-2014 and asking him to show cause as to why the examination centre at the petitioner-school should not be cancelled. The petitioner-school submitted its reply on 8-7-2014 refuting the allegations and praying for the re-call of the charges and allow it to continue as the examination centre in public interest. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that on the receipt of the said reply, the respondent No. 1 did not even bother to hold further enquiry into the matter and held, without considering the materials on record and in a most arbitrary manner, that disturbing reports had been received from the Inspector of Schools, North Lakhimpur (respondent 6) along with the report of Zonal Supervising Officer about the facilities available for smooth conduct of examination which corroborated with the report of SEBA officials and therefore, cancelled the petitioner-school as the examination centre for HSLC examination. Consequently, another order was issued by the SEBA on 25-9-2014 designating NA-ALI Avanary High School (Formerly feeder school of the petitioner-school) as the Examination Centre of seven High Schools (respondent 7 to 12) including the petitioner-school for the year 2015. As the impugned orders have caused hardships to the general public of the locality, a general meeting was held on 30-9-2014 on the premises of the petitioner-school objecting the actions of the SEBA and requesting the revocation of such actions. The contention of the petitioner-schools is that none of the officials of the Office of the respondent No. 6 ever made any physical inspection of petitioner-school. The complaint lodged with various authorities including the Education Minister, Assam did not evoke any positive response. It is the contention of the petitioner that the respondent No. 7 (The Na-Ali Avanary High School, Lakhimpur District) lacks the required infrastructures like room, desk, bench or proper boundary walls and is located at much farther distance from the surrounding feeder schools and without adequate transportation facilities. It is contended by the petitioner-school that the SEBA did not obtain the approval of the State Government before taking the impugned actions and, as such, the impugned orders are illegal and cannot be sustained in law. It is also submitted by the petitioner-school that the impugned actions were taken at the behest of some vested interests with the connivance of the respondent No. 6 and the Circle Officer, who submitted an adverse report without making it public. The representation filed by the respondent No. 8 to 12 against the impugned actions has not been disposed of till now. The petitioner-school is, therefore, constrained to file this writ petition for appropriate remedy. 3. While opposing the writ petition, the SEBA filed their affidavit-in-opposition. It is asserted by the answering respondents that the Board had designated the petitioner-school as the examination centre on the basis of false records and statements made by the school authorities on the available infrastructures of the school. Moreover, the SEBA has been receiving information about the mismanagement and malpractices in the examination centre. The centre is located at a distance of 30 kilometres from District Headquarters and 20 kilometres from the Panigaon Police Station. Moreover, the SEBA has been receiving information about the mismanagement and malpractices in the examination centre. The centre is located at a distance of 30 kilometres from District Headquarters and 20 kilometres from the Panigaon Police Station. The centre is located in such a manner that it takes more than 3/4 hours to arrive thereat from Panigaon Police Station: no other vehicles excluding two wheelers can be used in some portions of the road, while villagers shall have to walk on foot and cross the rivers by Boat. Taking advantage of the difficult communication, the Centre-in-Charge and the teachers who are engaged as invigilators instigated large scale malpractices: students from different parts of the State flock to this centre to appear here to indulge in mass copying, and the Supervising Officers or Zonal Supervisors did not dare take any action against the mass copying undertaken in the centre. The Officer who visited the Centre managed to reach the venue of the examination centre at about 11.45 AM with the help of local people by riding in a motorcycle and boat, but by that time, the opportunity for recording mass copying came to an end. According to the answering respondents, SEBA receives a feedback on the manner in which the concluded examination is conducted from a large number of teachers and students coming from every nook and corner of the State, who visit their office. It was on the basis of the report received from the Inspector of Schools of the District and the report submitted by the Zonal Supervising Officer that the Board served the show cause notice upon the Officer-in-Charge of Dafalakata HSLC Examination Centre. The Chairman, SEBA by his letter dated 4-8-2014 requested the Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur District, who happens to be the Chairman of District Level Examination Centre for submission of report about the allegation of large scale malpractices and mismanagement in the Dafalakata Examination Centre for the last several years. The report received from the jurisdictional Inspector of Schools, who is also the District Examination Officer and the Zonal Supervising Officer, was also placed before the Examination Committee of the SEBA, and the Committee recommended the withdrawal of the Centre from the petitioner-school, which was 4. Mr. The report received from the jurisdictional Inspector of Schools, who is also the District Examination Officer and the Zonal Supervising Officer, was also placed before the Examination Committee of the SEBA, and the Committee recommended the withdrawal of the Centre from the petitioner-school, which was 4. Mr. P. Pathak, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, contends that the petitioner-school has been conducting the HSLC/AHM for the last several years at their Centre without any complaint from any quarters, a fact supported by the surrounding feeder schools, who have made representations to the various authorities, and the impugned order withdrawing the centre from their school is arbitrary and mala fide in order to make Na-Ali Avanary High School as the Examination Centre, which admittedly does not have the requisite infrastructure. He further submits that the impugned orders have been issued without any material to substantiate the charge that the examination centre was indulging malpractices and mass copying. In fact, contends the learned counsel, the Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur District, who is the Chairman of the District Level Examination Supervision, was asked to submit a report, never submitted any report, much less, adverse report against the petitioner-school about the conduct of the examination in their centre, which demonstrates that the impugned orders have been issued without evidence of malpractice or mass-copying. Drawing my attention to the letter dated 13-10-2014 of the Lat Mandal, North Lakhimpur Circle addressed to the Circle Officer, North Lakhimpur Revenue Circle, the learned senior counsel submits that the report supported the case of the petitioner-school and, conversely, falsifies the case of the Na-Ali Avanary High School (respondent 7) for running the examination centre. He, therefore, strenuously urges this Court to allow the writ petition and quashed the impugned orders. 5. Refuting the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. T.C. Chutia. The learned standing counsel for the Board, contends that on the basis of the allegations made against the petitioner-school, the Board has come to a definite conclusion that the petitioner-school has been running the examination centre by mismanagement and by allowing large-scale malpractice and mass copying by the candidates thereby destroying the careers of genuine students; the purity of the examination system has to be maintained at any cost. He further submits that the impugned orders are based on the report of the jurisdictional Inspector of Schools, who more than any other, is the appropriate authority to give his opinion: such opinion is usually given weightage by the Board in withdrawing examination centre from a particular school. He maintains that the Board is entrusted with the duty of maintaining higher standards of education and proper conduct of examinations and that it is an expert body consisting of persons coming from different walks of life who are engaged or interested in the field of education and have wide experience. He, therefore, urges this Court to give due weightage to the decision of such an expert body and dismiss the writ petition, which is devoid of merit. To fortify his submissions, he takes me to the decision of the Apex Court in Chairman, J & K State Board of Education v. Feyaz Ahmed Malik, (2000) 3 SCC 59 . 6. At the risk of repetition, it may be restated that the pattern of judicial review over discretionary power of administrative or quasi-judicial authorities reflects reconciliation of two conflicting values. One, since the legislation has conferred power on an administrative authority, and courts have not been given power to hear appeals against its decision, it shows that trust has been placed in the judgment of the authority instead of the courts. Two, nevertheless, the authority must act within the bounds of the law and power, and since legislature cannot have intended that the executive be the final judge of the extent of its own powers, the Courts have to come into the picture to keep the administration within the confines of law. The interaction of these two values determines the scope of judicial review of discretionary powers of the administration. The extent of judicial review is best explained by the Apex Court in Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1954 SC 72: “…. [T]he court is not an appellate forum where the correctness of the order of the Government could be canvassed and, indeed, it has no jurisdiction to substitute its own view … for entirety of power, jurisdiction and discretion …. is vested by law in the Government. [T]he court is not an appellate forum where the correctness of the order of the Government could be canvassed and, indeed, it has no jurisdiction to substitute its own view … for entirety of power, jurisdiction and discretion …. is vested by law in the Government. The only question which could be considered by the Court is whether the authority vested with the power has paid attention to or taken into account circumstances, events or matters wholly extraneous to the purpose for which power was vested, or whether proceedings have been initiated mala fide for satisfying or personal grudge of the authority.” 7. An exercise of power may involve two elements:- (i) an objective element and (ii) a subjective element; the existence of the former is a condition precedent for the exercise of the latter power, or it could be said that the former is a jurisdictional fact and is subject to judicial review. In other words, the first requirement, namely, the existence of jurisdictional fact, if disputed, must be established objectively as a condition for the exercise of the power. The second, namely, the conclusion, is a subjective satisfaction of the Government and is not justiciable. Once a reasonable nexus between such satisfaction and the facts constituting the first requirement is shown, the exercise of the power by the Government not being colourable or motivated by extraneous considerations, is not open to judicial review. In the instant case, the Board was seemingly satisfied that there were widespread malpractices and mass-copying by the candidates in the HSLC/AHM examinations of 2015 conducted in the examination centre run by the petitioner-school and, therefore, withdrew the examination centre from their school. Thus, the question that can be objectively considered by this Court in this case is: Whether a situation of large-scale malpractice and/or mass copying by candidates for the HSLC/AHM examinations of 2014 existed in the petitioner-school running the examination centre? The parties are in dispute on this question. Therefore, this objective fact shall have to be proved by the Board before coming to the subjective satisfaction that the examination centre should be withdrawn from the petitioner-school. 8. The parties are in dispute on this question. Therefore, this objective fact shall have to be proved by the Board before coming to the subjective satisfaction that the examination centre should be withdrawn from the petitioner-school. 8. I have carefully gone through the affidavit-in-opposition as well as the additional affidavit filed by the Board to find out as to whether the said objective fact has been proved or whether there are some material to show that there were malpractices and mass copying by candidates in the examination centre run by the petitioner-school in the HSLC/AHM examinations, 2014. I am afraid, there is not even an iota of evidence to substantiate the charge against the petitioner-school on this count. Even the Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur District, who was to submit his report, did not do so. Annexure-D to the affidavit-in-opposition is the report of the jurisdictional Inspector of Schools, which did not make any whisper of statement about the existence of malpractices and mass copying by candidates in the said examination centre. It must be noted that the show cause notice dated 30-6-2014 issued upon the petitioner-school will reveal that it was accused of involvement “in large scale malpractices and use of unfair means during the period of HSLC/AHM Examination held from 13th February to 6th March 2014”, and nothing else: not even about the absence of adequate infrastructure, etc. As a matter of fact, the report of the Lat Mandal dated 13-10-2014 refuted the allegations about malpractices/mass copying or lack of infrastructures at the petitioner-school: it is the respondent No. 6, which did not have the requisite infrastructures. It is interesting to note that the impugned orders of withdrawal of the centre were issued not only on the ground of malpractices and mass copying but also on the ground of lack infrastructures in the centre, which was not even the subject-matter of the show cause notice. The petitioner-school could not be penalized on the ground for which no opportunity of hearing was given to them. In any case, in my judgment, there was absolutely no material from which it could reasonably be inferred that the petitioner-school was involved in large-scale malpractices and mass copying in the HSLC/AHM examination held in 2014 at its examination centre. The petitioner-school could not be penalized on the ground for which no opportunity of hearing was given to them. In any case, in my judgment, there was absolutely no material from which it could reasonably be inferred that the petitioner-school was involved in large-scale malpractices and mass copying in the HSLC/AHM examination held in 2014 at its examination centre. In the view that I have taken, I am of the view that the objective fact or jurisdictional fact to enable the Board to come to the conclusion that the examination centre should be withdrawn from the petitioner-school is not proved. In other words, I do not think that any reasonable person much less any expert body like the Board on the materials before it, could have jumped to the conclusion that there was such malpractices or mass copying by examinees in the centre in question in HSLC/AHM examinations, 2014. The Board cannot say that the statute gave them an unfettered discretion to withdraw the examination centre; it cannot be challenged in the courts of law. This argument held good some 68 years ago, but not now. In that view of the matter, both the impugned orders are perverse, arbitrary and cannot be sustained in law. 9. For what has been stated in the foregoing, this writ petition succeeds. Both the impugned orders dated 18-9-2014 (Annexure-4) and dated 25-9-2014 (Annexure-5) issued by the Chairman, SEBA are hereby quashed. The respondents shall restore the petitioner-school as the examination centre for HSLC/AHM Examinations within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this judgment. To avoid administrative inconvenience and technical problems for the Board, it shall, however, be open to the respondent-Board to continue, as an interim measure, to use Na-Ali Avanary High School (the newly created centre) as the Examination Centre for the said feeder schools including Dafalakata Janajati High School only for the forthcoming HSLC Examination, 2015. No costs.