HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 2842 of 2024 (M/S) Arjita Bora ….....Petitioner Versus Office of Registrar in GB Pant University of Agriculture and Technology and Others ….….Respondents Present:- Mr. Harsh Vardhan Dhanik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Lingwal, Advocate for the respondents, through video conferencing. 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 quashing the impugned order dated 24.08.2024 issued by respondent no.1 (contained as Annexure No.2) to this writ petition. (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release the yearly report card of year 2023-2024 and directing the respondents to consider the petitioner for admission in course no.ARE399 for academic year 2024- 2025. (iii) Pass any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case. (iv) Award the cost of the petition to the petitioner. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. The petitioner is a student of B.Sc. (Hons.) Agriculture and B.Tech Mechanical Engineering in GB Pant University of Agriculture and Technology University, Pantnagar, District Udham Singh Nagar. During final examination in second semester 2023-2024, he was found using unfair means. Therefore, he was debarred for the 2 academic session 2023-2024. It is put to challenge in this writ petition. 4. Pleadings have been exchanged. 5. 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 Govind Ballabh Pant University Pantnagar and Another, 2017 SCC OnLine Utt 383. 6. This fact is admitted by learned counsel for the respondents. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 24.08.2024 is set aside. 8. 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) 06.06.2025 Ravi Bisht