28/01 2026 AD-07/24 266312 NANDY (DISMISSED) In the High Court at Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side WPA 1093 of 2026 ALOK KUMAR VERMA Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. Mr. Partha Chakraborty, Advocate Mr. Rishab Dutta, Advocate …...for the Petitioner Ms. Deboleena Ghosh, Advocate Mr. S. Bandopadhyay, Advocate Mr. A.K. Nag, Advocate ……for the WBMCC Ms. Rama Halder, Advocate Ms. Joweria Rusana, Advocate ……for the State Mr. D.N. Maiti, Advocate Mr. A. Santra, Advocate ……for the WBUHS Mr. Sunit Kumar Roy, Advocate ……for the NMC 1. The petitioner was allotted a seat in the Raniganj Institute of Medical Science as a successful candidate in the NEET-UG-2025. The allotted seat was under the quota of private management. 2. The petitioner had made an initial payment of Rs.5 lakhs which is not disputed. However, the petitioner was unable to pay a further sum of Rs.20 lakhs and also failed to report to the allotted medical college within the stipulated period as mentioned in the counseling schedule. The stipulated date in the counseling schedule for reporting was 27.12.2025. 3. Since the petitioner failed to report, the seat allotted to the petitioner, was cancelled and was thereafter filled up. 4. Mr. Chakraborty, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has urged that the intention of the petitioner, as can be culled out, from the fact that he had made payment of Rs.5 lakhs, was to join the college. However, since the petitioner was from Patna, he was unable to do so. P a g e | 2 5. Ms. Ghosh, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent no. 3 submits that presently there is no seat under the private management quota available in the said college and in order to accommodate the petitioner, if at all, a seat from a different quota for which the petitioner had not applied, would have to be given. This is impermissible. 6. Mr. Roy, learned Advocate representing the respondent no. 7, submits that the payment was made pursuant to a decision taken during the counseling round, to ensure that the seats are not blocked by the successful candidates, in search of a better college. 7. It is not in dispute that the last date for admission has already expired on 31.12.2025. The petitioner has approached this Court only on 16.01.2026. 8. There are no seats under the private management quota available with the college, in which the petitioner could have been accommodated. 9. In these circumstances as afore-stated, the relief prayed for by the petitioner, cannot be granted. 10. Accordingly, WPA 1093 of 2026 is dismissed. No order as to costs. (Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.) P a g e | 3