High Court Kerala High Court

Resna A.P. vs State Of Kerala on 28 October, 2010

Kerala High Court
Resna A.P. vs State Of Kerala on 28 October, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 32807 of 2010(A)


1. RESNA A.P., AGED 18 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

2. KERALA PRIVATE MEDICAL COLLEGE

3. PRINCIPAL,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :28/10/2010

 O R D E R
                        ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                     ================
             W.P.(C) NO. 32807 & 32864 OF 2010
             =========================

          Dated this the 28th day of October, 2010

                         J U D G M E N T

The prayer in these writ petitions is to enlarge the time for

furnishing bank guarantee, which, in terms of the prospectus is to

be furnished to the respondent College, for admission to MBBS

Course. According to the petitioners, on receipt of the allotment

memos, though they remitted the fee and interest free deposit

within the limited time available, they could not secure bank

guarantee and produce the same before the College. It is stated

that therefore, the time for furnishing bank guarantee should be

extended by this Court so that the requirements of the prospectus

could be complied with and the petitioners could seek admission.

2. However, I am not inclined to grant the prayer of the

petitioners. This is primarily for the reason that the Apex Court by

its order dated 23/9/2010 in SLP NO.23830-23832/10, had

directed the managements to complete the process of admission

by 25/10/2010. Therefore, the prayer now sought for by the

petitioners will have the effect of upsetting the schedule fixed by

the Apex Court for completion of admission in the respondent

WPC Nos. 32807 & 32864 /10
:2 :

College. In that view, it is impermissible for this Court to grant the

relief sought for.

Therefore, the writ petitions are only to be dismissed and I

do so.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp