M.R. Sharma, J. - (1.) THE petitioner took his examination for B. Com. Part I Class held in April 1973. At the time when he was appearing in the subject of English and Current Affairs, the seating arrangement shows that he was given a seat at the head of row No. 3 and Roll No. 3809 was given the last but one seat at the end of row No. 2. In other words, both the candidates were sitting at a considerable distance. It is also the admitted case of the parties that neither the Superintendent nor the invigilators made any report about acts of misconduct indulged in by the examinees. The petitioner was served with a questionnaire and asked to explain that the answer to Question No. 1 written by him tallied with the answer written by Roll No. 3809. In his reply, the petitioner submitted that both the candidates were occupying seats at considerable distance from each other and the precis in question had been selected from the lesson, "The Planned Society" which was included in their text book. According to him this para had been taught to them in their Tutorial Group and he had crammed it. The Standing Committee considered this explanation in the following terms : - - Both these candidates have written five lines in answer to Q No. 1 (Precis) and a comparison of the same shows that these are materially the same. Both the candidates have given the heading of the precis as "Fascism". The only exception is that Roll No. 3811 has written "Idens" instead of "Ideals" and "paid instead of "laid" without understanding. Such type of similarity in answer to an unforeseen passage set in the question on precis is not possible without copying from one another or having access to a common or identical source. Their plea that they had done this question independent of any help is not acceptable. But these candidates have violated the provisions of regulations 7 given at page 480 of the P.U. Calendar Vol. II, 1972. It is obvious that the important point raised by the petitioner regarding the seating plan was not considered by the Standing Committee. This fact assumes added importance because admittedly neither the Superintendent nor any of the Invigilators did make any complaint about any misconduct indulged in by the examinees. In Civil Writ No. 14267 of 1973 Sehdev Singh v. Guru Nanak University, Amritsar C.W. No. 42 of 1973, decided on 8th of February, 1974, I quashed the decision of the Standing Committee on similar grounds. The Learned Counsel for the respondent has drawn ray attention to Prem Parkash Kaluniva v. The Punjab University, (1973) 3 S.C.S. 424 and Board of High Schools and Intermediate Education, U.P. v. Bagleshwar Prasad : A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 875, which lay down that decision of the Standing Committee is final and not open to challenge in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. There is no quarrel with the proposition of law laid down in these two authorities. But in a matter like this when the student raises plausible defences against the accusation levelled against him, it is the duty of the Standing Committee to give due weight to those defences. When the Standing Committee fails to perform this duty, it is in substance, ignores to consider relevant evidence which is present on record. In such a situation writ of certiorari can certainly issue in quashing the decision of the Standing Committee. For the reasons mentioned above, this petition deserves to succeed and I order accordingly. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.;