APHC010276992025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH WRIT PETITION NO: 13894 of 2025 Battina Srivalli Vs. Union Of India and Others Advocate for Petitioner: Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 8th September 2025 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice Ravi Cheemalapati Aggrieved by the action of respondents 2 to 7 in allotting 8 centre for NEET UG-2025 wherein alternative arrangements for power backup were not taken up resulting in loss of time to the petitioner in the examination, the present writ petition is filed. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION NO: 13894 of 2025 Bench Sr.No: ...Petitioner ...Respondent(s) ********** SIVA NAGARJUNA SIDHADAPU Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH FW, Y V ANIL KUMAR (Central Government Counsel), Tata Venkata Sridevi, Standing Counsel For Dr.NTR University of Health Sciences THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR RI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 8th September 2025 (Per Sri Justice Ravi Cheemalapati) Aggrieved by the action of respondents 2 to 7 in allotting 8th 2025 wherein alternative arrangements for power backup were not taken up resulting in loss of time to the petitioner in the examination, the present writ petition is filed. Bench Sr.No:-44 [3483] ...Petitioner ...Respondent(s) NAGARJUNA SIDHADAPU GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH FW, Y V ANIL KUMAR (Central Government Counsel), Tata Venkata Sridevi, Standing Counsel For Dr.NTR University of Health Sciences THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR respondent 2025 wherein alternative arrangements for power backup were not taken up resulting in loss of time to the petitioner in the examination, 2 2. Heard Sri Siva Nagarjuna Sidhapu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Y.V.Anil kumar, learned central government counsel for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the contents of the affidavit contended that, the petitioner applied for National Eligibility Entrance Test (UG) -2025 (for short NEET UG-2025) which was scheduled to be held on 04.05.2025 from 02:00pm to 05:00pm. He further submitted that the petitioner was allotted Room No.08 in 8th respondent examination centre by 2nd respondent and accordingly she appeared for the said examination. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that due to rain, the 8th respondent examination centre has lost power connection around 3:45 pm to 4:30 pm and the petitioner was unable to see the question paper and OMR sheet and cannot focus and concentrate on the examination. He further submitted that the respondents 9 &10 did not extend the time to compensate the loss of 45 minutes time though pleaded, as such the petitioner incurred loss. He further submitted that while allotting the examination centre, the respondents concerned has to take alternative arrangements for power fluctuations but they did not do so. He further submitted that the petitioner being meritorious student, well prepared for the exam but could not complete the examination because of less time, due to the negligence on the part of the respondents; as such her career was ruined for no fault of her. As such prayed for a direction to permit the petitioner to re-appear in the NEET (UG) 3 for the academic year 2025-2026 or alternatively compensate the petitioner equal to the amount for completion of MBBS course. 4. On the other hand, learned central government counsel on counter contended that the petitioner had suppressed many fundamental and material facts which are relevant and necessary for adjudication of this case. He further submitted that, based on the reports of Exam Functionaries, who were in- charge of exam, it was very clear that the power outage at the exam centre of the petitioner is only about 20 minutes and there was sufficient natural light in the petitioner’s room, therefore it cannot be accepted that the said power outage had impact on the petitioner in attempting the examination. The CC photographs’ relating to petitioner’s exam room having adequate ambient lighting were placed on record and has drawn the attention of this court to the same. He further submitted that, if at all there was that much darkness/low visibility in her exam room as alleged by the petitioner, she would not have attempted/answered 144 Questions (correctly or incorrectly) out of 180 questions. He further submitted that, no other candidate in her room, except the petitioner had approached this court filing the writ petition complaining about the said darkness impacting their exam. Further, the petitioner had not made any mention whether she had made a representation in the said matter to the answering respondent immediately after the exam day. Therefore, it can be clearly said that the petitioner had concocted a story for the purpose of 4 filing this writ petition, which is meritless and accordingly prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions of both the learned counsel. 6. The petitioner had filed this writ petition alleging that due to negligence of respondents in making alternative arrangements for the power cut, she has incurred loss of time and lost her career for no fault of her, as such prayed to permit her to re-appear in the NEET (UG) for the academic year 2025-2026 or alternatively compensate her petitioner equal to the amount for completion of MBBS course. Admittedly, the NEET (UG) exam was conducted on 04.05.2025 from 02:00pm to 05:00pm wherein the petitioner was allotted Room No.08 in 8th respondent examination centre by 2nd respondent. It is the contention of the petitioner that power connection was lost around 3:45 pm to 4:30 pm for 45 minutes leaving it too dark to concentrate and focus on the examination whereas the respondents while relying on the CCTV’s photographs urged that the power outage at the exam centre of the petitioner is only about 20 minutes and there was sufficient natural light in the petitioner’s room. The CCTV’s photographs would clearly show that there was adequate ambient light in the petitioner’s room which is sufficient for the attempting the exam. If at all there was a power outage that affected the examination, all the other candidates in the petitioner’s would also have complained about the 5 same but in the present case, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, no other candidate in her room had complained about the said powercut affecting their examination. Further, the petitioner had not made a representation in the said matter to the answering respondent immediately after the exam day. In the said circumstances, it can be said that it is an afterthought. The writ petition being meritless deserves dismissal. The writ petition, accordingly, is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J BRS