Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010070062022 2025:GAU-AS:13660 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2576/2022 UTSAV KADAM S/O -UDAY KADAM R/O- B-901, PRAKARTI, GOKULDHAM, GOREGAON, EAST MUMBAI-63 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS REP. BY THE MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE, NEW DELHI 2:INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY GUWAHATI (IIT GUWAHATI) P.O AND P.S- NORTH GUWAHATI KAMRUP (R) GUWAHATI-39 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR 3:THE DEAN OF STUDENT AFFAIRS INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY GUWAHATI (IIT GUWAHATI) P.O AND P.S- NORTH GUWAHATI KAMRUP (R) GUWAHATI PIN-781039 4:SENATE INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY GUWAHATI (IIT GUWAHATI) P.O AND P.S- NORTH GUWAHATI KAMRUP (R) GUWAHATI Page No.# 2/7 PIN-781039 5:REGISTRAR (INTERIM) SECRETARY SENATE INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY GUWAHATI (IIT GUWAHATI) P.O AND P.S- NORTH GUWAHATI DIST- KAMRUP (R) PIN-781039 6:STUDENTS DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY GUWAHATI (IIT GUWAHATI) P.O AND P.S- NORTH GUWAHATI DIST- KAMRUP (R) PIN-781039 7:INTERNAL COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY GUWAHATI (IIT GUWAHATI) P.O AND P.S- NORTH GUWAHATI DIST- KAMRUP (R) PIN-78103 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K N CHOUDHURY, MS. J BHATTACHARJEE,MISS P DAS,MR R K MOUR,MR. S C KEYAL Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I., MR. A K DUTTA (R- 2 TO 7),MR A B DEY (R- 2 TO 7),MR. R P KAKOTI SR. ADV. (R- 2 TO 7),MR. S SUTRADHAR (R- 2 TO 7),SC, IITG BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO O R D E R 13.10.2025 Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. P. Gayan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.P Kakoti, learned Standing counsel, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Guwahati assisted Page No.# 3/7 by Mr. A.D Dey, learned counsel appearing for all the respondents, except for respondent No.1. 2. This is the second time the petitioner is before this Court. The earlier writ petition being WP(C) No.5354/2021 was disposed of on 07.10.2021 after the learned Standing Counsel, IIT, Guwahati made a submission that the authorities in the IIT would afford an opportunity to the petitioner before arriving at a conclusion as to whether his studentship in the IIT, Guwahati should be retained or otherwise. 3. Brief facts are that the petitioner secured his enrolment as a student of B. Tech in Bio Technology in the IIT, Guwahati and at the relevant time, he was a third year student and was in the 6th semester. The petitioner on 28.03.2021, consumed liquor along with one junior lady student whereafter, the junior student became unconscious and had to be hospitalized. Following the same, three FIRs were lodged and later amalgamated into one. The petitioner was arrested, but later released on bail. The IIT authorities on the basis of the recommendation made by the Students Disciplinary Committee (SDC) and which was approved by the Senate, terminated the studentship of the petitioner with immediate effect vide communication dated 16.09.2021 made to him. Aggrieved with the same, the first writ petition was filed, which however came to be disposed of as the IIT authorities decided to give the petitioner an opportunity to be heard on the matter, as already indicated herein before. 4. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner was given a show cause notice on 21.12.2021 informing him that he had violated the Ordinance and Code of Conduct of students of the IIT and therefore was required to respond as Page No.# 4/7 to why he should not be proceeded against. The petitioner was also furnished with copy of the Fact Finding Committee Report, Minutes of the SDC Meetings and the Ordinance and Code of Conduct of students of IIT, amongst others. The petitioner responded to the show cause notice by submitting a reply on 27.12.2021 stating the facts of the case while accepting the fact that consumption of alcohol within the campus of the IIT was not permissible. He further indicated that for his action, he had already paid a heavy price as he was not able to continue with the course to which he was admitted and he assured that he would not repeat similar conduct in future. He thus sought for favourable consideration and permission to continue with his studies in the Institute. 5. Following the above reply made by the petitioner, a meeting was held on 24.01.2022 by the SDC wherein the petitioner was present and he was given an opportunity of hearing. The SDC again recommended the termination of the studentship of the petitioner and the same was recorded in the meeting minutes. The matter was then placed before the Senate, which considered the same along with other agendas on 11.02.2022 and the Senate as per Item-12 of its meeting minutes, decided to accept the recommendation of the SDC. Aggrieved, the petitioner is once again before this Court challenging the consequential order passed on 07.03.2022, by which his studentship was terminated with immediate effect. 6. Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent authorities have proceeded with the matter on the premise that the criminal Court found a prima-facie case against the petitioner as was reflected in the order of bail. He submits that there is no Page No.# 5/7 such ingredient for pressing criminal charges against the petitioner which can be appreciated from the version of the doctor, who made medical examination of the junior student who was said to have consumed alcohol along with the petitioner. The petitioner no doubt violated the rules of the Institute by consuming alcohol within the campus but for the same, he has been sufficiently penalized as he has lost about three academic years. He also submits that the junior student had since completed her studies and no longer in the institute, whereas the petitioner has been deprived of his studentship and thereby leaving him without any future. He therefore, submits that the respondent authorities may be directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner and to allow him to complete his studies. 7. Mr. R.P. Kakoti, learned Standing Counsel, IIT, Guwahati on the other hand submits that realising the petitioner was not given adequate opportunity, the respondent authorities decided to give him an opportunity to explain himself for his conduct. It was only after giving him such opportunity that the SDC found that his act cannot be condoned and recommended that he be expelled from the Institute. The Senate upon duly considering the recommendation made by the SDC and after taking into account all aspects of the matter, agreed with the recommendation. He therefore, submits that no interference on the steps taken by the respondent authorities may be made. He also admits that the junior student is no longer a student of the Institute and that she has already passed out. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and upon perusal of the materials available on record, it only appears that although a criminal colour was given at the initial stage, but thereafter, no material Page No.# 6/7 has been placed before the Court to show that the petitioner has been convicted for his action, except that he was expelled from the Institute. Expulsion obviously has been done in view of the violation of the Ordinance and Code of Conduct of students as prescribed for the Institute. The petitioner is said to have consumed alcohol within the campus of the Institute and for such a conduct, he has been expelled in the midst of his 6th semester and thereby making him lose his future career prospects. The affidavit in the writ petition shows that the petitioner was 22 years of age at the time of filing the writ petition i.e. in the year 2022. 9. Under the facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that ends of justice would be served if the petitioner is given an opportunity to file an appropriate representation before the Registrar, IIT, Guwahati i.e. respondent No.5 and which should be done within a period of 10(ten) days from today. In the event of filing such a representation, the respondent No.5 shall place the same before the competent authority for due consideration. The fact that the petitioner has lost about 03(three) academic years and is of a young age of about 25 years as on today, may also be taken into consideration. In the process of such consideration, should the authorities decide that he be re-admitted to the Institute, it would be open for them to seek an appropriate bond from him undertaking that he will not indulge in any activities which would be in violation of the rules, norms, the Ordinance and Code of Conduct of the Institute. 10. The respondent authorities shall carry out the above exercise of consideration as expeditiously as possible and pass an appropriate speaking order preferably within a period of 04(four) weeks from the date Page No.# 7/7 of receipt of the representation and a certified copy of this order. 11. With the above observations and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant