JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. 1. Admit. Shri Gursharan H. Virk, learned advocate waives service of notice of admission on behalf of the respondent-Student. In the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the appeal is taken up for final hearing today. 2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 4.5.2016 passed in Special Civil Application No. 20317 of 2015, by which, the learned Single Judge has allowed said Special Civil Application and has quashed and set aside the order dated 3.12.2015, by which, the appellant No. 1 University has cancelled respondent student examine of quantitative techniques held on 2.11.2015. 2.1. The facts leading to the present Letters Patent Appeal in nutshell are as under. 2.2. That the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the "Student") is a Student pursuing his education in the appellant No. 1-Gujarat National Law University (hereinafter referred to as the "GNLU"). That according to the appellants, GNLU student indulged into mal-practice reported on 2.11.2015 during the End Semester Examination (Repeat) of the subject Quantitative Techniques (Semester III). According to the case of the appellants, Examination Inquiry Committee recommended "Cancellation of the end-term examination of that particular subject of the candidate" and therefore, appellant No. 2 Director, GNLU and the University passed the order dated 3.12.2015 cancelling the student examine of Quantitative Techniques held on 2.11.2015. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the disciplinary action and the order dated 3.12.2015, student preferred Special Civil Application No. 20327 of 2015 before learned Single Judge of this Court on the ground that the said decision was absolutely in breach of Gujarat National Law University (Academic, Examination, Moots, Internship, Hostel and Related Matters) Regulations, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules") and also on the ground that the same was absolutely in breach of principle of natural justice. It was also the case on behalf of the student that the decision dated 3.12.2015 is mala-fide. 2.3. It was the case on behalf of the appellant and the University that the petition is premature as the disciplinary proceedings had yet not been completed. It was the case on behalf of the University that the order dated 3.12.2015 was the outcome of the alleged "prima facie inquiry" and the inquiry was pending completion of the inquiry by the "Student Disciplinary Committee". It was the case on behalf of the University that the order dated 3.12.2015 was the outcome of the alleged "prima facie inquiry" and the inquiry was pending completion of the inquiry by the "Student Disciplinary Committee". It was the case on behalf of the University that as such the Student has indulged into mal-practice and therefore, liable to be punished under the Regulation 2015. It was also the case on behalf of the University in the affidavit in reply that through inadvertence instead of informing student about the hearing to be given before the Student Disciplinary Committee, the Examination Section wrote an E-mail on 3.12.2015 that examination stands cancelled. In the alternative, it was submitted that if this Court comes to the conclusion that order dated 3.12.2015 is in breach of principles of natural justice, in that case, an opportunity be reserved in favour of University to initiate appropriate disciplinary proceedings as required to be followed under the provision of Regulation 2015 and thereafter to pass appropriate order. 2.4. That by impugned order, the learned Single Judge has accepted the case on behalf of the Student and has observed and found that order dated 3.12.2015 is in breach of principles of natural justice and consequently by impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge set aside the said order. However, the learned Single Judge has not acceded to the request of the University permitting the University to hold the inquiry as contemplated under Regulation 2015 and thereafter to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and on merits. 2.5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, more particularly, in not reserving the liberty in favour of the University to hold disciplinary proceedings/inquiry against the Student as contemplated under Regulation 2015 and thereafter to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and on merits, the original respondents-appellant University have preferred present Letters Patent Appeal. 3. Shri Mihir Thakore, learned Senior Advocate has appeared on behalf of the appellants and Shri Gursharan H. Virk, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the Student. 4. 3. Shri Mihir Thakore, learned Senior Advocate has appeared on behalf of the appellants and Shri Gursharan H. Virk, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the Student. 4. After the elaborate submissions were made by learned advocates for the respective parties, there is broad consensus between the learned advocates for the respective parties, the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge be modified to the extent permitting/reserving the liberty in favour of the Appellant University-GNLU to hold disciplinary proceedings/disciplinary inquiry proceedings against the Student as contemplated after following due procedure as required under Regulation 2015. There is broad consensus between the learned advocates for the respective parties that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and so as to avoid any further allegation and/or counter allegation, more particularly, to avoid any further allegation of bias, let the Inquiry Committee be constituted of two independent persons viz. Shri Mukesh Patel and Shri Amal Dhru. It is also agreed between the learned advocates for the respective parties that during the hearing before the Student Inquiry Committee family friend of Student Shri Jayesh D. Brahmbhat may accompany him and remain present at the time of inquiry along with Student. It is also further agreed between the learned advocates for the respective parties that the Inquiry Committee to adjudicate the allegations against the Student in accordance with the provision of Regulations 2015. It is also further agreed between the learned advocates for the respective parties that in accordance with Regulations 2015, the Student be provided with the report of the Invigilating Faculty, show cause notice indicating alleged misconduct, documents and evidence proposed to be relied upon by the GNLU against the Student and that the Student be permitted to submit his written defence. It is also agreed between the learned advocates for the respective parties that thereafter the recommendation/report of the Inquiry Committee shall be placed before the Executive Council and appropriate decision thereafter be taken by the Executive Council instead of final decision to be taken by the Director as per the amended Regulations 2015. It is also agreed between the learned advocates for the respective parties that thereafter the recommendation/report of the Inquiry Committee shall be placed before the Executive Council and appropriate decision thereafter be taken by the Executive Council instead of final decision to be taken by the Director as per the amended Regulations 2015. It is also further agreed between the learned advocates for the respective parties that pending hearing, adjudication and final outcome of the Inquiry Committee and the subsequent consideration thereof by the Executive Council, the Student may be permitted to attend the 4th Academic Year starting from 27.6.2016 without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respective parties and subject to the outcome of the disciplinary inquiry proceedings against the Student and that if the Student is permitted accordingly he shall not claim any equity thereafter. It is also agreed between the learned advocate for the respective parties, more particularly, Shri Shri Gursharan Virk, learned advocate for the Student that let any observations made by the learned Single Judge against the learned advocate for the GNLU/University, more particularly, contained in para 22 be quashed and set aside, for the same, learned advocate for the original petitioner does not invite any further reasoned order. Learned advocates for the respective parties have therefore, requested to modify the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge to the aforesaid extent and pass an order in terms of the above consensus between the learned advocates for the respective parties recorded herein above. 5. Having heard Shri Mihir Thakore, learned Senior Advocate for the appellants and Shri Gursharan Virk, learned advocate for the Student and in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that if the present Letters Patent Appeal is disposed of in terms of consensus arrived at between the learned advocates for the respective parties recorded herein above and the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge is modified to the aforesaid extent, the same shall be in the larger interest of the parties and which may avoid further allegations and counter allegations of mala fide and/or bias. 6. 6. In view of the above broad consensus between the learned advocates for the respective parties recorded herein above, the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 4.5.2016 passed in Special Civil Application No. 20317 of 2015 is hereby modified as under: I. That the appellant University/GNLU is permitted to initiate/take disciplinary measure against the Student for the alleged malpractice adopted by the Student. II. That while taking disciplinary measures against the Student, University - GNLU to follow the procedure as required under the provision of Regulations 2015, more particularly, as provided in Regulation 38(b)(v) of the Regulation 2015 prevailing at the time when the alleged misconduct was committed by the Student. III. That in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and to avoid any further allegation and/or counter allegation of bias and mala-fide, the Inquiry Committee shall consists of Shri Mukesh Patel, Renowned Income Tax Practitioner and Shri Amal Dhru, Chartered Accountant, as agreed by and between the learned advocates for the respective parties. IV. That before Inquiry Committee, the Student is permitted to appear before Inquiry Committee accompanied by one Shri Jayesh D. Brahmbhatt as agreed. V. The Student Inquiry Committee to follow the procedure as required to be followed under the provision of Regulations 2015, more particularly, para 38(b)(v) and thereafter after giving fullest opportunity to the Student, to submit their recommendation/report at the earliest but not later than 31.07.2016. As agreed between the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and without citing the same as a precedent, venue of the Inquiry be decided by the Members of the Student Inquiry Committee. VI. That thereafter, the recommendation/report of the Inquiry Committee, be considered by the Executive Council who shall take final decision on the report that may be submitted by the Inquiry Committee. The said exercise may be completed within a period of 30 days from the report of the Inquiry Committee. VII. That subject to the outcome of the disciplinary measures against the Student and without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respective parties in the disciplinary measures proceedings, pending hearing, adjudication and final outcome of the Student Inquiry Committee and subsequent consideration thereof by the Executive Council, the original petitioner Student be permitted to attend 4th Academic Year starting from 27.6.2016. However, as agreed by and between the learned advocates for the respective parties, more particularly, Shri Virk, learned advocate for the Student, the Student shall not claim any equity by permitting him to attend 4th Academic Year. VIII. As observed herein above and with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties recorded herein above, any observations made by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment and order, made against the learned advocate for the GNLU/University, more particularly, contained in para 22 are hereby quashed and set aside. 7. Present appeal is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order and the direction and the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 4.5.2016 passed in Special Civil Application No. 20317 of 2015 is modified to the aforesaid extent and with above directions. However, it is made clear that the present order and the directions and the procedure to be followed by the Inquiry committee and Executive Council as observed herein above and is passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties and same shall not be treated as precedent. Present Appeal is stands disposed of accordingly in terms of the above order and directions. No costs. 8. In view of the disposal of the Letters Patent Appeal, Civil Application stands disposed of accordingly.