K.B.Asthana, J. - (1.)THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by Ram Narain Singh, who was a student of B. A. (Part III) in the Central Hindu College of the Banaras Hindu University. The petitioner has questioned the legality and the validity of the action taken by the Standing Committee of the Academic Council of that University expelling him from the University.
(2.)IT appears that in the Birla Hostel attached to the college some incident took place in January. 1965. The Principal of the College submitted a confidential note dated 10-2-1965 to the Deputy Registrar (Academic) concerning the said incident. A copy of the said note, is Annexure "B'' to the counter- affidavit. According to the said note, the petitioner was found guilty of harassing one Devendra Nath Sharma, an inmate of the hostel, and is said to have admitted his fault. The Principal recommended that the incident having created a panic among young generation of the hostel inmates some serious action ought to be taken against all the culprits. He, however, recommended that the petitioner deserved leniency because of his confession at the very first instance. The Principal sent another communication to the Deputy Registrar (Academic) in continuation of his note of February 10. 1965. In the case of the petitioner it was suggested that he be warned and a warning be sent also to his parents and further he he fined Rs. 25. By a communication dated 9-3-1965 the Deputy Registrar (Academic) informed the Principal that the petitioner be awarded the punishment of removal from the Hostel, to Mahindravi Lodge and he be fined Rs. 25 and a letter be Issued to his guardian. It appeal's that this communication from the Deputy Registrar (Academic) dated 9th March, 1906 bad not reached the hands of the Principal when in the night between 10/llth March. 1965 another incident took place in which the petitioner was also alleged to be involved. The Principal by his letter dated 12-3- 1965 intimated to the Deputy Registrar (Academic) that the petitioner again beat Devendra Nath Sharma of the same Hostel, that on an enquiry made by him and the Administrative Warden, the petitioner confessed before them that he called Sharma to his room on the night and as Sharma did not come, so he beat him, It was also communicated by this letter that the principal had gone to the Vice- Chancellor, who decided that the petitioner should be expelled from the Birla Hostel immediately and he may be given temporarily a room at the Mahendravi Lodge pending decision of the Standing Committee which was to meet on 12-3-1965. The Principal requested the Deputy Registrar (Academic) that this matter be also placed before the Standing Committee. There is yet another report by the Principal dated 12-3-1965 to the Vice Chancellor which is to the effect that the petitioner could only be contacted at about 9 p.m. in the night and be showed his reluctance to leave the hostel but on the Chief Proctor's intervention be agreed to pick up his baggage and leave the room but since then he is absconding, and as he did not turn up his room had been put under hostel lock. In the meeting of the Standing Committee of the Academic Council held on 12-3-1966 the orders of the Vice Chancellor dated 8th March, 1965 awarding punishments to students on the earlier incidents in the Birla Hostel were put up and confirmed. The fine of Rs. 25 on the petitioner, his expulsion from the hostel and the issue of a warning to his parents was confirmed. The Standing Committee further resolved that besides the above punishment the petitioner may not be admitted to any College of the University in future. This was the action taken by the Standing Committee in regard to the earlier incidents. The proceedings then show that the Vice-Chancellor read out the letter dated 12th March, 1965 received from the Principal regarding further acts of indiscipline and grave misbehaviour on the part of the petitioner. This was the letter which the Principal had written to the Deputy Registrar (Academic) regarding the incidents of the night between 10/11th March, 1965 involving the petitioner. The Standing Committee then passed the following resolution:
"Resolved further that Sri Ram Narain Singh (Petitioner) be expelled from the University with immediate effect."
When the petitioner came to know of the decision of the Standing Committee that he had been expelled with immediate effect from the University he applied to the Vice Chancellor for being permitted at least to complete the examination which was going on at that time. The Vice Chancellor permitted the petitioner to continue to appear in B.A. (Part III) Examinations of 1965 subject to the approval of the Standing Committee. Meanwhile some sort of representation had also been made by the brother of the petitioner to the University authorities for reconsidering the matter and allowing the petitioner to complete the examination, but the Standing Committee of the Academic Council rejected both the requests made on behalf of the petitioner. The permission for appearing in the examination granted by the Vice Chancellor was disapproved by a resolution dated 9-4-1965 and the representation made by the brother of the petitioner was rejected by a resolution dated 17-4-1966. At that material time the final examination of B.A. (Part III) of the University were going on and the petitioner had vet to appear In some of the papers. Since he failed to get any relief from the University. the petitioner approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and his petition was admitted by a Bench of this Court on 26-4-1966 and an interim order was passed directing the University to allow the petitioner to appear in the B.A. (Part III) Examinations of 1866, but the announcement of the result was ordered to be withheld by the University during the pendency of the petition.
Sri K. P. Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner, stated before me that the petitioner has appeared in all the papers in the B.A. (Part III) Examinations of the University in pursuance of the interim order passed by the Court.

(3.)ON behalf of the petitioner two contentions were raised in support of the petition, The first contention was that the Standing Committee of the Academic Council of the University had no power and jurisdiction to punish the petitioner inasmuch as the Standing Committee as a delegate of the Academic Council could only perform those functions and exercise those powers which were conferred upon it by the statutes. It was submitted that there is no statute empowering the Standing Council of the Academic Council to award punishment to any student of the University on any charge of indiscipline which power vests only in the Academic Council. It was further submitted that since under the Banaras Hindu University Act by its Section 11 it is the Academic Council which is the supreme authority in charge of the discipline of students and by Section 12 it is the Standing Committee which can only exercise such powers and such duties as may be vested by the Statute, any delegation of power to perform any function in respect of awarding punishment for breach of discipline by students to the Standing Committee by the Academic Council or any conferment of any such powers on the Standing Committee by the Ordinances would have no legal validity unless some Statutes were framed empowering the Standing Committee to perform any function or any duty in respect of the discipline of students. I think this contention of the learned counsel is devoid of force.