2025:UHC:6562-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. G. NARENDAR AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. ALOK MAHRA Writ Petition (M/S) No.967 of 2025 24th July, 2025 Saavi Bakshi --Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and Another --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Rohit Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for the respondents/University. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT : (per Mr. Alok Mahra, J.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India was filed seeking the following reliefs:- “a. Issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 1 to provide the enrollment letter to the Petitioner; b. Issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 1 to allow the Petitioner to sit in the examination for the BAMS First Year Professional 2023-24 (New Course) conducted by the University as declared by the University vide the Letter dated 07/02/2025 2025:UHC:6562-DB 2 (Annexure 6); C. Issue any other writ, order or direction and /or allow any other consequential relief as expedient in law, on the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. An Interim Relief Application (IA No.1 of 2025) was also filed along with the writ petition, wherein she has sought a direction that respondent no.1 may be directed to permit the petitioner to sit in the examination conducted by the University for first year B.A.M.S. First Year Professional 2023-24 (New Course). The said interim relief application of the petitioner was rejected by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 08.04.2025. Relevant extract of the said order is reproduced below:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that it is a question of career of a student; she has been pursuing her studies, but she has not been given the Enrolment number. Dr. Anil Kumar Jha, Principal of the respondent no.2 College joined the proceeding through video conferencing. He would submit that he has never given admission to the petitioner. After Stray Counselling, he contacted the respondent no.1, the University, as to whether the petitioner could be provided admission, but since there was no written communication from the University, he did not give her admission, though according to him, the petitioner did join the classes for few months and, thereafter, the respondent no.2 stopped her from joining the classes also and she is no more student of the College. Having considered, this Court does not see it as a case fit for granting an interim order. Accordingly, the interim relief application deserves to be rejected. 2025:UHC:6562-DB 3 The interim relief application is rejected.” 4. Against rejection of her interim relief application, petitioner preferred Special Appeal No.75 of 2025. The Coordinate Bench of this Court also dismissed the aforesaid Appeal, on 02.05.2025. Relevant extract of the judgment dated 02.05.2025 is reproduced below:- “3. We find force in the said submission. For admission to a course, which is governed by a regulatory body, counseling is held and the body holding counseling has to issue allotment letter pursuant to which a student takes admission in the particular college. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant was unable to show any such documents based on which appellant could get admission in B.A.M.S. Ayurvedic course. 5. Thus, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal fails and is dismissed”. 5. Aggrieved by the said orders, petitioner approached the Hon’ble Apex Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal (c) No(s). 16936/2025. The Hon’ble Apex Court disposed of the Appeal vide its order dated 24.06.2025. The relevant portion of the judgment dated 24.06.2025 is extracted bellow:- “1. Though we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order, we are of the view that this is a matter wherein the writ petition itself should be taken up and disposed of on 30.06.2025, the date on which the writ petition is slated to be listed or such other earlier date the High Court may fix.” 2025:UHC:6562-DB 4 2. With these observations, the special leave petition is disposed of.” 6. Today, in the morning, a mention was made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the pretext that the case may be taken up out of turn and the petitioner be permitted to appear in the examination, which is scheduled to be held, on 26.07.2025. 7. When the case was taken up, a specific query was made to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as to whether the petitioner was granted admission by the College and whether she has deposited the fee with the college, in reply thereto, the learned counsel for the petitioner conceded that the petitioner has not deposited any fee with the college. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent/University has drawn attention of this Court to the Minutes of the Meeting of the Counseling Board held on 07.12.2023, wherein the respondent/University had requested for filling up of one seat, which fell vacant on non-joining of the selected candidate; that the Counseling Board came to conclusion that since last date of admission i.e. on 30.11.2023 has already passed, therefore, the respondent no.2/University cannot be directed to give 2025:UHC:6562-DB 5 admission to another candidate and the Ministry of Aayush, Government of India be requested to extend the date of counseling and, only after the decision by the Ministry of Aayush, further action would be taken. 9. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for petitioner was asked as to why petitioner was granted admission by the college. Even while replying the said query, the learned counsel for petitioner did not disclose that the petitioner has not deposited any fee with the college. When the Court was again and again asking the petitioner as to why petitioner was granted admission by the college, then that question was avoided by learned counsel for the petitioner. 10. From the above facts, it is apparently clear that the regularity body i.e. Counseling Board as not issued any allotment letter in favour of the petitioner permitting her to take admission in any College leave alone College of respondent no.2. Furthermore, neither she was admitted by the College i.e. respondent no.2 nor she has deposited any fee, therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is likely to be dismissed with an exemplary cost, quantified to the tune of 2025:UHC:6562-DB 6 ₹50,000/- 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with cost of ₹50,000/-. Petitioner is directed to deposit the aforesaid cost in the bank account of ‘Uttarakhand High Court Lawyers Welfare Fund’, within a period of four weeks’ from today. In case, the aforesaid amount is not deposited within the stipulated period, the said amount shall be recovered from the petitioner through Collector, Dehradun, as arrears of land revenue. (G. NARENDAR, C.J.) (ALOK MAHRA, J.) Dated: 24.07.2025 BS BALWANT SINGH Digitally signed by BALWANT SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=fbbd191c8bdb8b16e8ca7937deaf72a17c02fe2eacbf28cdf4ba7ce8640c 5820, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=04E141DF4614F9A4D5F48346EB553DE5185F418755DC00A7A13 C14A680C3FA90, cn=BALWANT SINGH Date: 2025.07.31 16:41:15 +05'30'