1 CGHC010304092026 2026:CGHC:35614 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4111 of 2026 1 - Radhya Jain D/o Brajesh Jain Aged About 18 Years R/o 950, Nunhai Near Ganesh Mandir Dixitpura Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - Union of India Through The Secretary, Ministry of Textiles, Government of India, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi – 110011. 2 - National Institute Of Fashion Technology Through Its Director General, N.I.F.T. Campus, New Delhi- 110016. 3 - The Chairperson/ Convener Admissions And Seat Allocation, National Institute of Fashion Technology, N.I.F.T. Campus, New Delhi- 110016. 4 - The Director National Institute Of Fashion Technology, Nava Raipur Campus, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 5 - The Branch Manager Indian Bank, Fawara Chowk Branch, Jabalpur (Branch Code 4725), (Madhya Pradesh) ... Respondents (Cause title is downloaded from CIS Periphery.) For Petitioner : Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, Advocate. For UOI : Mr. Abhishek Banjare, C.G.C. RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU Date: 2026.08.19 18:15:24 +0530 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 12/08/2026 1. The petitioner has preferred the present petition, being aggrieved by the action of the respondent authorities, particularly respondent No. 5, in not permitting her to deposit the requisite admission fee and complete the admission process in the respondent No. 5 institution, despite the fact that the petitioner had been duly allotted the seat and the delay in payment was occasioned by circumstances beyond her control and was not attributable to any fault, negligence or omission on her part. 2. Brief facts of the case, as stated by the petitioner, is that the petitioner, a meritorious candidate belonging to the General-EWS category, duly qualified the NIFT Entrance Examination, 2026, securing Common Merit Rank 8663 and Category Merit Rank 498. She participated in the centralized e-counselling conducted by the respondents and duly completed all prescribed formalities, including registration, document verification, payment of the requisite participation fee, and choice filling and locking, in accordance with the Guidelines for Seat Allocation and Admissions, 2026 issued by respondent No. 2. In the Spot Round, the petitioner was declared successful and was issued a Provisional Seat Allotment Letter dated 24.07.2026, allotting her a seat in Bachelor of Design (Fashion Interiors) at NIFT Nava Raipur Campus, under the All India Quota in the GEN-EWS category. As per the Opening and Closing Rank data officially 3 published by the respondents, the petitioner's rank of 8663 was the Opening Rank, whereas the Closing Rank was 9211, thereby demonstrating that she stood at the highest merit position amongst the candidates allotted seats in the said category, while candidates ranked below her were admitted. The last date for payment of the admission fee was initially 27.07.2026, subsequently extended to 28.07.2026, and the petitioner had arranged the entire requisite fee of Rs. 1,91,700/-. However, on 27.07.2026, during the subsistence of the payment window, her savings bank account bearing No. 8058347551, maintained with Indian Bank, Fawwara Chowk Branch, Jabalpur, was subjected to a “debit freeze” by the Bank on account of an internal "transaction threshold limit" requirement, for reasons wholly beyond her control and without any act, omission or negligence on her part. The petitioner immediately approached the Bank, complied with its requirements, including furnishing a declaration for enhancement of the Expected Annual Credit Amount, and diligently took steps for removal of the freeze, which was ultimately resolved on 31.07.2026. In the meantime, the petitioner promptly informed respondent Nos. 2 to 4 of the aforesaid exceptional circumstances through representations/e-mails dated 29.07.2026, 30.07.2026 (twice) and 31.07.2026 (twice), furnishing the relevant particulars and expressing her readiness to deposit the entire admission fee forthwith. However, none of the said representations were acknowledged, considered or responded to. The petitioner thus 4 faces the grave and disproportionate consequence of losing a duly allotted seat and an entire academic year despite having fulfilled all eligibility and counselling requirements and being prevented from making timely payment solely due to an unforeseen banking impediment beyond her control. Since the Spot Round is the terminal round of counselling and no third party has any competing or accrued claim to the said seat, its restoration would cause no prejudice to any other candidate, whereas denial thereof would result in grave and irreparable prejudice to the petitioner. Hence, the present petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to deposit the Admission Fee of Rs. 1,91,700/- in respect of the seat in Bachelor of Design (Fashion Interiors) at NIFT Nava Raipur Campus (All India Quota, GEN-EWS category) provisionally allotted to her vide Provisional Seat Allotment Letter dated 24.07.2026, and further directing the respondents that upon such deposit her admission to the said programme at the said Campus shall stand confirmed for the Academic Session 2026-27; 10.2 Award the costs of the present petition in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents; and] 10.3 Pass such other and further order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interests of justice.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned inaction of the respondents is manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The respondents are bound to act fairly and reasonably and cannot 5 mechanically enforce a deadline while ignoring circumstances which rendered compliance temporarily impossible for reasons wholly beyond the petitioner's control. The petitioner had secured Common Merit Rank 8663, which was the opening rank for the concerned seat, whereas candidates up to Rank 9211 were admitted. Thus, denial of admission to the petitioner, who stood at the highest merit position, while candidates lower in merit were granted admission, defeats the very principle of merit and results in hostile discrimination. The petitioner had also been issued the provisional allotment letter dated 24.07.2026 and had arranged the requisite fee, but could not effect payment solely because her bank account was subjected to a debit freeze on 27.07.2026 for an internal banking requirement. The said impediment was entirely beyond her control, and she immediately took steps to have the freeze removed, which was ultimately resolved on 31.07.2026. He next submits that the respondents' failure to consider the petitioner's successive representations dated 29.07.2026, 30.07.2026 (twice) and 31.07.2026 (twice) is contrary to the principles of natural justice and amounts to complete non- application of mind and failure to discharge their public duty. The petitioner was neither afforded an opportunity of being heard nor communicated any reasoned decision, despite having specifically explained the exceptional circumstances and expressed her readiness to deposit the entire fee forthwith. The principle that the law does not compel a person to perform an impossibility applies 6 squarely to the present case, as the petitioner's temporary inability to make payment was occasioned by a third-party banking restriction and was neither deliberate nor negligent. The extreme consequence of forfeiting a duly allotted seat and an entire academic year for such an involuntary and temporary impediment is manifestly disproportionate. Moreover, the respondents themselves extended the payment deadline from 27.07.2026 to 28.07.2026, demonstrating that the schedule is capable of relaxation in appropriate circumstances, and the same discretion could not be refused arbitrarily in the petitioner's exceptional case. He also submits that refusal of relief serves no public interest, particularly since the Spot Round was the terminal round of counselling, no competing or accrued third-party right exists in respect of the seat, and the seat would otherwise remain vacant. Permitting the petitioner, a meritorious candidate, to deposit the requisite fee would cause no prejudice to the respondents or any other candidate and would prevent wastage of a valuable seat in an institution of national importance. Any provision providing for cancellation upon non-payment within the stipulated period cannot be applied mechanically so as to penalize the petitioner for a default not attributable to her and must be construed consistently with constitutional guarantees of fairness, reasonableness and proportionality. The balance of convenience and equities lie overwhelmingly in favour of the petitioner, as refusal of relief would cause irreparable loss by depriving her of an academic 7 year, whereas grant of relief would merely enable the respondents to receive the prescribed fee and fill a seat which would otherwise remain vacant. The petitioner, therefore, respectfully seeks restoration of her allotment and permission to deposit the requisite admission fee forthwith, in the interests of justice, equity and fairness. Reliance has been placed on the decision of Atul Kumar vs. Chairman (Joint Seat Allocation Authority) and Others reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2684 and in the matter of Asha vs. Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences and Others reported in (2012) 7 SCC 389. 4. Learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the Union of India opposes the prayer of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner failed to deposit the prescribed admission fee within the stipulated time as mandated under the applicable Seat Allocation and Admission Guidelines, and that non-payment within the notified deadline resulted in lapse/cancellation of the allotment. It is submitted that the deadline was uniformly applicable to all candidates and no exception can be made in favour of the petitioner without compromising the sanctity, uniformity and finality of the centralized counselling process. The alleged banking difficulty is a matter between the petitioner and her Bank and cannot be attributed to the respondents, the petitioner being responsible for ensuring timely payment within the prescribed window. Any subsequent representation or willingness to pay 8 cannot revive an allotment which had already lapsed in terms of the applicable Guidelines. It is, therefore, submitted that interference by this Court would amount to impermissible relaxation of the admission norms in an individual case, and the writ petition, as well as the prayer for restoration of allotment and acceptance of the admission fee, deserves to be rejected. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Atul Kumar (supra) held in paras 6 to 8 which reads as thus:- “6. Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent has furnished to the Court the log-in details of the petitioner, which indicate that he was diligent in accessing the portal and did everything within his power to secure the realization of his admission. The petitioner logged in on 24 June 2024 between 15.12 hours and 16.57 hours, on as many as six occasions. This evidently indicates that he was making earnest efforts to log into the portal. There is no conceivable reason why the petitioner would not have done so if he had the wherewithal to pay the fees of Rs. 17,500. A talented student like the petitioner who belongs to a marginalized group of citizens and has done everything to secure admission should not be left in the lurch. The power of this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution to do substantial justice is meant precisely to cover such a situation. 7. We accordingly order and direct that the petitioner should be granted admission to IIT Dhanbad against the seat which was allotted to him in the branch of Electrical Engineering. The petitioner will be admitted to the same batch to which he would have been admitted in pursuance of the order of allotment. The petitioner is 9 ready and willing to pay fees of Rs. 17,500, which may be paid over personally at the time when admission is granted to him. A supernumerary seat shall be created for the petitioner, if so required, for the purpose of complying with this order and no existing student shall be disturbed in consequence. The petitioner would be entitled to all the consequential benefits of admission, including allotment of hostel accommodation and other facilities. 8. Since the admission of the petitioner has been delayed for no fault of his, we request the Director of IIT Dhanbad to use his good offices to ensure that the petitioner can duly complete the course work for the period which has already elapsed during this academic year. This will ensure that the petitioner is abreast of his class and does not suffer for the delay in granting him admission.” 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Asha (supra) held in paras 21, 24 and 32 which is reproduced as under:- “21. At this stage, we may refer to certain judgments of the Court where it has clearly spelt out that the criteria for selection has to be merit alone. In fact, merit, fairness and transparency are the ethos of the process for admission to such courses. It will be a travesty of the scheme formulated by this Court and duly notified by the States, if the Rule of Merit is defeated by inefficiency, inaccuracy or improper methods of admission. There cannot be any circumstance where the rule of merit can be compromised. From the facts of the present case, it is evident that merit has been a casualty. It will be useful to refer to the view consistently taken by this Court that merit alone is the criteria for such admissions and circumvention of merit is not only impermissible but is also abuse of the process of law. (Ref.: Priya Gupta v. 10 State of Chhattisgarh3, Harshali v. State of Maharashtra4, Pradeep Jain v. Union of India5, Sharwan Kumar v. DG of Health Services6. 24. The Court cannot ignore the fact that these admissions relate to professional courses and the entire life of a student depends upon his admission to a particular course. Every candidate of higher merit would always aspire admission to the course which is more promising. Undoubtedly, any candidate would prefer course of MBBS over BDS given the high competitiveness in the present times, where on a fraction of a mark, admission to the course could vary. Higher the competition, greater is the duty on the part of the authorities concerned to act with utmost caution to ensure transparency and fairness. It is one of their primary obligations to see that a candidate of higher merit is not denied seat to the appropriate course and college, as per his preference. We are not oblivious of the fact that the process of admissions is a cumbersome task for the authorities but that per se cannot be a ground for compromising merit. The authorities concerned are expected to perform certain functions, which must be performed in a fair and proper manner i.e. strictly in consonance with the relevant rules and regulations. 32. Though there can be the rarest of rare cases or exceptional circumstances where the courts may have to mould the relief and make exception to the cut-off date of 30th September, but in those cases, the Court must first return a finding that no fault is attributable to the candidate, the candidate has pursued her rights and legal remedies expeditiously without any delay and that there is fault on the part of the authorities and apparent breach of some rules, regulations and principles in the process of selection and grant of admission. Where 11 denial of admission violates the right to equality and equal treatment of the candidate, it would be completely unjust and unfair to deny such exceptional relief to the candidate. (Refer Arti Sapru v. State of J&K23, Chhavi Mehrotra v. DG, Health Services24 and Arvind Kumar Kankane v. State of U.P.25)” 7. In the light of the aforesaid judgments, and upon minute appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, as well as after hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the petitioner had duly qualified the NIFT Entrance Examination, 2026 and was provisionally allotted a seat in the Bachelor of Design (Fashion Interiors) at NIFT Nava Raipur Campus. The petitioner was required to deposit the admission fee of Rs.1,91,700/- within the prescribed period; however, she could not do so as her bank account was subjected to a “debit freeze” owing to circumstances beyond her control. The material on record further establishes that the petitioner acted with due diligence and immediately approached the concerned Bank for removal of the restriction. Accordingly, the failure to deposit the admission fee within the stipulated period cannot be attributed to any deliberate act, negligence or lack of bona fides on the part of the Petitioner. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner ought not to be deprived of the seat earned by her on merit on account of an unforeseen banking impediment for which she cannot be held responsible. Further, as no prejudice would be 12 caused to any third party by permitting the petitioner to complete the admission process, this Court finds that the interests of justice, equity and fairness warrant interference. 8. As an upshot, the present petition is allowed. The respondent authorities are directed to accept from the petitioner the entire admission fee of Rs.1,91,700/- and to complete all necessary formalities for her admission to the Bachelor of Design (Fashion Interiors) at NIFT Nava Raipur Campus. The petitioner shall approach the concerned authorities and deposit the aforesaid admission fee within 20 days from today, whereupon the respondents shall forthwith process and complete her admission in accordance with law. The present order shall be treated as confined to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and it will not be treated as precedent in any other case. 9. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge U.K. Raju