JUDGMENT : Tapabrata Chakraborty, J. This writ application has been preferred by the College of Engineering and Management, Kolaghat (hereinafter referred to as the said college) and it’s Director challenging, inter alia, the memorandum dated 23rd July, 2015 issued by the Director, All India Council for Technical Education (hereinafter referred to as AICTE). Records reveal that this Court passed an interim order on 11th August, 2015 restraining the respondents from giving any effect or further effect to the order of punishment of 25% reduction in intake in all the courses of the said college for the academic year 2015-16, till the end of September, 2015 or until further order whichever is earlier and in the said order it was also observed that the admission of the students pertaining to the extent of 25% in intake of all the courses in the said college for the academic session 2015-16 shall abide by the result of the writ application and the parties were directed to exchange their affidavits and pursuant thereto affidavits-in-opposition have filed on behalf of AICTE and the respondent no.4 and the petitioners have filed an affidavit-in-reply to the opposition filed on behalf of AICTE. The matter was taken up for final hearing on 27th November, 2015 when Mr. Gangopadhyay, learned advocate appearing for AICTE produced a copy of an enquiry report dated 22nd October, 2014 filed by the Enquiry Committee constituted by the said college. The said report was, however, not annexed to the writ application or to the affidavit-in-reply filed by the petitioners. The said report was directed to be kept on record and a copy of the same was handed over to the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners and on his prayer an adjournment was granted to enable him to avail necessary instruction. Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the said college is affiliated with the Maulana Abul Kalam Azad University of Technology (hereinafter referred to the said University) and it was granted approval by AICTE way back in the year 1998. Since such inception, there has been no allegation of ragging against the students of the said college till an incident, which occasioned on 5th September, 2014. On the said date, there was an infighting among two groups of students in the said college and a chaotic situation occasioned. Since such inception, there has been no allegation of ragging against the students of the said college till an incident, which occasioned on 5th September, 2014. On the said date, there was an infighting among two groups of students in the said college and a chaotic situation occasioned. Thereafter, a further incident occurred on 18th of September, 2014 and the said incidents were duly reported to the Officer-in-Charge of Kolaghat Police Station. Subsequent thereto, on the basis of an anonymous complaint, the Evaluation Committee of AICTE conducted an inspection and a report was submitted to the Student Complaint Committee through the Regional Sub-Committee of AICTE and thereafter a show cause notice was issued to which the petitioners replied and the final order was communicated to the petitioners by the memorandum impugned. Drawing the attention of this Court to the documents at pages 39 and 50 of the writ application, Mr. Bhattacharyya submits that the accused students were identified and were suspended for a certain period and they were kept in a separate accommodation and a sincere endeavour was made on the part of the college authorities to resolve the disputes among the students but without considering such steps taken, an order of punishment of 25 % reduction in intake of all the courses of the academic year 2015-16 was imposed upon the said college. In the midst of investigation on and from the first date of the incident on 5th September, 2014 till 23rd July, 2015, the said college was allowed to proceed with the admission of the students and prior to communication of the impugned memorandum, the students were already admitted pertaining to the intake capacity and that as such the imposition of the punishment of reduction of intake capacity would seriously prejudice the students already admitted. He further submits that in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 23 read with Section 14(b), (g), (p) and (q) of the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and in view of the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court the All India Council for Technical Education (Prevention and Prohibition of Ragging in Technical Institutions, Universities including Deemed to be Universities imparting technical education) Regulations, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the said Regulations) were promulgated vide notification dated 1st July, 2009. Primarily, the objectives towards framing of such Regulations of 2009 were to prohibit, prevent and eliminate the scourge of ragging and to provide a healthy development, physically and psychologically, of all students. He argues that the authorities have imposed the punishment against the petitioners in the backdrop of the findings, inter alia, to the effect that though the incidents of ragging took place on 5th and 18th September, 2014, no punishment has been awarded to any of the students who were found guilty by the Enquiry Committee and the required anti-ragging measures were not adopted and that there was no monitoring mechanism. Such findings, according to Mr. Bhattacharyya, are absolutely unfounded inasmuch as the said college constituted an Enquiry Committee immediately on 25th September, 2014 and did suspend the students who were involved and that the said students were kept in a separate accommodation and a sincere endeavour was made on the part of the college authorities to resolve the disputes among the students in a cautious manner as in the said disputes provincial sentiments were involved. He adds that in view of the effective steps taken by the authorities of the said college, subsequent to 19th September, 2014, no further incident of ragging took place and normalcy was restored. He further submits that there was no indolence on the part of the authorities to take effective measures to fulfil the objectives of the said Regulations and that the said college did not fail to take measures for prevention of ragging and as such, the authorities could not have taken any action under Regulation 9. Furthermore, the punishment imposed for curtailment of the intake capacity of the said institute is thoroughly disproportionate. Prior to imposition of such punishment no weightage was granted to the fact that since the date of inception of the said college till 5th September, 2014 no incident of ragging occasioned in the said college. Furthermore, the college authorities did bring the incident to the notice of the local police authorities and for the inaction on their part to treat the complaints as FIR and to take appropriate steps, the college cannot be made to suffer. Mr. Bhattacharyya has also argued that the monitoring mechanism has been appropriately maintained by the said college in consonance with the provisions of Regulation 6 by constituting anti-ragging committee, anti-ragging squad and monitoring cell. Mr. Bhattacharyya has also argued that the monitoring mechanism has been appropriately maintained by the said college in consonance with the provisions of Regulation 6 by constituting anti-ragging committee, anti-ragging squad and monitoring cell. In support of such contention, he has drawn the attention of this Court to the documents annexed to the affidavit-in-reply disclosing the fact of existence of anti-ragging committees, anti-ragging squad, the routines specified for the said committee and squad. It has also been indicated that the District Magistrate, Purba Medinipur, Superintendent of Police, Purba Medinipur, wardens, non-teaching staffs, student representatives and local media personnel are members of the anti-ragging committee. Relying upon the documents annexed at pages 81 to 87 of the affidavit-in-reply, he further argues that there was no fault in the monitoring mechanism and that the freshers were not involved and affected in the incidents which took place on 5th, 18th and 10th September, 2014 and that the said incidents which have not affected the freshers, cannot be strictly construed as instances of ragging warranting imposition of deterrent punishment. The college authorities did take the measures for prevention of ragging and the monitoring mechanism adopted was also sound and recurrence of incidents was prevented and that as such the imposition of punishment was baseless and whimsical. In support of such contention, Mr. Bhattacharyya has placed reliance upon the following judgments : (a) Vishwa Jagriti Mission through, President vs. Central Government through Cabinet Secretary and others, reported in AIR 2001 SC 2793 ; (b) University of Kerala vs. Council of Principals of College in Kerala & Ors., reported in AIR 2009 SC 2223 . Mr. Gangopadhyay, learned advocate appearing for the AICTE submits that save and except keeping the accused students in a separate accommodation for a few days, no other steps have been taken in terms of the said Regulations and such inaction on the part of the college authorities has in fact emboldened the accused students. In the reply to the show cause, the college said that the students involved were asked to vacate hostel on 19th September, 2014 but they were again called back on 8th October, 2014. Thus, in fact, no punishment whatsoever was imposed and the delinquents were left scot free. In the reply to the show cause, the college said that the students involved were asked to vacate hostel on 19th September, 2014 but they were again called back on 8th October, 2014. Thus, in fact, no punishment whatsoever was imposed and the delinquents were left scot free. Though the incidents on 5th, 18th and 19th September, 2014 were found to be of very serious nature by the Enquiry Committee way back on 20th October, 2014, the anti-ragging committee almost a year thereafter recommended a punishment of suspension from hostel and academic activities at least for two weeks on 7th July, 2015. By the time suspension was ultimately recommended, the identified 4th year students have already left. The entire episode is nothing but an eyewash. He further submits that the petitioners deliberately did not bring the Enquiry Committee report on record with the sole intent to mislead this Court and to shield the errant students. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and I have considered the material on record. A close scrutiny of the said Regulations of 2009 reveals that the primary objective of the said Regulations is not only to prohibit and prevent the scourge of ragging but also to eliminate the same. Unless appropriate action is taken towards prohibition and prevention, elimination of the menace of ragging can never be achieved. Regulation 5 of the said Regulations provides that it shall be mandatory for the concerned institute to take the measures detailed therein. Such measures have been sought to be fortified further by introducing a monitoring mechanism under Regulation 6. Regulation 8 of the said Regulations clearly stipulates that the punishment to be meted out to the persons indulging in ragging has to be exemplary and justifiably harsh to act as a deterrent against recurrence of such incidents. At this juncture, it needs to be stated that though the said enquiry report is dated 22nd October, 2014 and the same was in the possession of the college, it did not annex the same to the writ application affirmed on 31st July, 2015 or in the reply affirmed on 8th September, 2015. Such fact came to the notice of this Court only after Mr. Gangopadhyay placed the said report before this Court in course of hearing of the writ application on 27th November, 2015. Such fact came to the notice of this Court only after Mr. Gangopadhyay placed the said report before this Court in course of hearing of the writ application on 27th November, 2015. From such sequence it is explicit that there had been a conscious attempt on the part of the petitioners not to bring the said enquiry report to the notice of this Court. A perusal of the said enquiry report brings out startling facts. After considering the case history and the depositions of the participants in eight hearings, the Enquiry Committee identified the students and observed that they deserve exemplary punishment and recorded as follows : “When the Freshers’ Welcome Programme was just at the point of inauguration then fresh incidence of violence, say abusing/tussle/beating/slapping started between 2nd year and 4th year students (boys) at around 10.00 AM near 2nd year hostel. The mob of 4th year students gathered near the gates of 2nd year hostel for retaliation. At that point of time when college authority was in the spot, then some 4th year students (boys) reported that they were abused/slapped/beaten by 2nd year students (boys). The mob wanted immediate punishment of alleged accused of 2nd year. Though college authority assured that appropriate action will be taken against the guilty party of 2nd year as per procedure, the 4th year students in a mob took the law in their own hand and once again beaten up 2nd year students in the canteen during their lunch hours and did not hesitate to enter the locked 2nd year hostel by breaking the collapsible gate and beaten up hapless 2nd year boys brutally causing severe physical injury amounting to profuse bleeding in a particular case. The altercation/unrest/violence has taken such a massive unruly turn that the Freshers’ Welcome Programme had to be suspended/withdrawn by the organisers of the college. The situation had gone out of bounce. The entire college authority failed to pacify the student mob (boys) of 4th year. The mob overpowered them and tried to beat the 2nd year boys in a body near small exit gate outside of hostels premises. Finally, the college authority was compelled to call local police to douse the heat and anger of 4th year students (boys). The entire college authority failed to pacify the student mob (boys) of 4th year. The mob overpowered them and tried to beat the 2nd year boys in a body near small exit gate outside of hostels premises. Finally, the college authority was compelled to call local police to douse the heat and anger of 4th year students (boys). 2nd, 3rd & 4th Hostels (boys) were evacuated by 4.00 PM to avert any possible worse altercation/unrest/violence at night on that day.” Upon consideration of such facts and upon recording the depositions the said Enquiry Committee recommended, inter alia, as follows :- “Any unlawful activity or offence in the hostel/campus by any student inviting unrest/violence shall be punishable. There should not be any precedence of absolution without any valid reason acceptable to the college authority. All alleged accused of 19th September, 2014 brawl, as cited above, are to be punished by the competent authority of the college without any loss of time.” For adjudication of the instant matter, the following dates would be very relevant : (a) 5th September, 2014 – At around 2:30 a.m., a group of final year students physically humiliated second year boy students; (b) 16th September, 2014 – Enquiry report of anti-ragging squad recommending that the students named therein be penalized; (c) 18th September, 2014 – At around 10:30 p.m., some senior students again physically assaulted a few second year students; (d) 19th September, 2014 – Complaint received at about 9:00 a.m. The senior (final) year students did not pay any heed and took law in their own hands. 2nd, 3rd and 4th year boys asked to vacate hostel; (e) 20th September, 2014 – Classes of 2nd/3rd/4th year declared suspended till 13th October, 2014; (f) 25th September, 2014 – Enquiry Committee constituted; (g) 8th October, 2014 – Final year students called back; (h) 16th October, 2014 – Enquiry report filed identifying the students; (i) 22nd October, 2014 – Enquiry Committee report filed; (j) 28th October, 2014 – Anti-ragging committee report filed observing, inter alia, that the students identified are directly involved and deserve punishment; (k) 17th February, 2015 – Expert Committee visited the college and filed report; (l) 1st June, 2015 – Show cause notice issued; (m) 9th June, 2015 – Reply by the college to the show cause notice; (n) 26th June, 2015 – AICTE asks Director of the college to attend Standing Complaint Committee meeting on 3rd July, 2015; (o) 3rd July, 2015 – Standing Complaint Committee report filed observing, inter alia, that no punishment has been awarded to any of the students who were found guilty by Enquiry Committee and that there was no monitoring mechanism; (p) 7th July, 2015 – Anti-ragging committee meeting held and it recommended that students be suspended from the hostel and academic activities for at least two weeks; (q) 11th July, 2015 – Governing body meeting resolves to take immediate penal measures to the extent of suspension for at least two weeks; (r) 23rd July, 2015 – Order of punishment imposed by AICTE. The sequence of above facts clearly reveals that the incidents on 5th September, 2014, 18th September, 2014 and 19th September, 2014 have been admitted to be incidents of ragging. The anti ragging squad upon inquiry found 2nd and 4th year students to be involved. The said squad identified 20 students and recommended for suitable action. The anti ragging committee also affirmed such identification but punishment was not directed to be imposed ‘right now’, on a purported plea that the incidents are prone to provincial disintegration between two sections of students and that almost nine months thereafter the same committee on 7th July, 2015 recommended for suspension for two weeks. By the time suspension was ultimately recommended, the identified 4th year students have already completed their courses. By the time suspension was ultimately recommended, the identified 4th year students have already completed their courses. Upon consideration of the incidents on 5th, 18th and 19th September, 2014 the Enquiry Committee found the same to be very serious way back on 22nd October, 2014 and recommended imposition of immediate and exemplary punishment but such recommendation was not given effect to. However, in reply to the show cause notice the said college stated that the recommendations made by the Enquiry Committee are being progressively implemented by providing for gym facilities and other facilities like volleyball, badminton, basketball, cricket and football. In the reply to the show cause it was also stated that the students involved were asked to vacate hostel on 19th September, 2014 but they were again called back on 8th October, 2014. Thus, in fact, no punishment whatsoever was imposed and the errant students were left scot free and such action is not only violative of the Regulations but is also an instance of a planned decision to shield the errant students and such action unless dealt with sternly would be sending wrong signals to the society. A very important aspect of punishment is that it is an institutionalised imposition for some definite end and such end is to deter a potential offender and to prevent repetition of offences by the actual wrongdoer. The very purpose of punishment is that it makes commission of offence an ill bargain for the offender and deters the potential offender. The animalistic urge for offence and pleasure is sought to be held in check by the reigns of pain and punishment. Pleasure persuades and pain dissuades. The balance between the two is thus secured. The punishment imposed in the instant case adequately serves the twin objectives of sentencing policy being deterrence and correction. Mr. Bhattacharyya contended that the final year students were called back as campus drive was scheduled on 11th & 12th October, 2014 and for the ruckus on 5th & 18th September, 2014 the college could not have spoiled the academic career of the students. Such action on the part of the college authorities is nothing but an instance of misplaced sympathy and leverage towards errant students and has the effect of exacerbating ragging instead of obliterating the scar of ragging. Such action on the part of the college authorities is nothing but an instance of misplaced sympathy and leverage towards errant students and has the effect of exacerbating ragging instead of obliterating the scar of ragging. For the reasons discussed above, this Court is of the view that the punishment of 25% reduction in intake of all the courses for academic year 2015-16 was rightly imposed upon the petitioners. However, due to pendency of the writ application and the subsisting interim order, the imposition of the punishment in the academic year 2015-16 is now almost an impossibility and such punishment if imposed in respect of academic year 201516, the students admitted pertaining to the extent of 25% in intake would be severely affected and would have to suffer shifting to other AICTE approved institutes in the midst of their curriculum. In the backdrop of such fact scenario and as this Court has arrived at a finding that the punishment was rightly imposed by AICTE, the college has to suffer the same. Accordingly, this Court directs that the said college shall suffer the punishment of 25% reduction in intake of all the courses for the next academic year 2016-17. With the above observations and directions, this writ application is disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.