HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 2679 of 2024 (M/S) Sanjay Rawat ….....Petitioner Versus GB Pant University of Agriculture and Technology and Another ….….Respondents Present:- Mr. Deepak Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Shubhang Dobhal, Advocate for the respondents. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) By means of the instant writ petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:- (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 27/28th August 2024 issued by the office of Registrar GB Pant University of Agriculture and Technology Pantnagar, District Udham Singh Nagar, qua the petitioner whereby, the petitioner on the allegations of using unfair means during semester examination has been debarred for the academic year 2023-24. (Annexure no.2 to this petition). (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to provisionally appear and pursue B.Tech fifth semester of his third year in course for the academic session 2024-25 and onwards course. (iii) Issue any other and further order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. (iv) Award costs of the petition to the petitioner. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the controversy is squarely covered by the judgment dated 23.03.2017 passed by this Court in the case of Mr. Udit Singh Vs. Vice Chancellor 2 Govind Ballabh Pant University Pantnagar and Another, 2017 SCC OnLine Utt 383. 4. This fact is admitted by learned counsel for the respondents. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 27/28.08.2024 is set aside. 6. Now, the Vice-Chancellor of the university shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and proceed in the matter, as per the directions contained in Para 17 of the judgment in the case of Udit Singh (supra), which reads as follows:- “17. Having passed the abovesaid order, this Court not only would give an opportunity to the Vice-Chancellor but, on the other hand, would request the Vice-Chancellor to appreciate the entire case including the report of the University Discipline Committee and other evidence on record as well as the statement of the petitioner preferably after giving a personal hearing to the student and thereafter take a decision in the matter preferable within two weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. A personal hearing, however, would not mean that the petitioner would be represented by any other person, including a lawyer. For abundant precaution, the petitioner would be permitted to appear in the 2nd semester classes till the decision is finally taken by the Vice-Chancellor. It is made clear that this permission to the petitioner to appear in the second semester classes should not be taken as any comment on the merit of his case. The Vice-Chancellor must take a decision on the merit of the case, keeping all aspects into consideration, including the discipline of the institute.” (Ravindra Maithani, J) 17.07.2025 Ravi Bisht