High Court Kerala High Court

Raisa S. vs State Of Kerala on 24 September, 2010

Kerala High Court
Raisa S. vs State Of Kerala on 24 September, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 28559 of 2010(T)


1. RAISA S., CHAKKOLA, 1/510-8,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS,

3. KERALA PRIVATE MEDICAL COLLEGE

4. ADMISSION SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE FOR

                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI

                For Respondent  :SRI.R.T.PRADEEP

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :24/09/2010

 O R D E R
                      ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                    ================
                W.P.(C) NO. 28559 OF 2010 (T)
                =====================

         Dated this the 24th day of September, 2010

                         J U D G M E N T

Petitioner was an applicant in response to the prospectus

published by the 3rd respondent for admission to MBBS Course in

their colleges. Complaint of the petitioner is that she submitted

the application and had gone to the office of the respondent with

Demand Draft before 5 p.m. on 11/9/2010 and that the demand

draft was not accepted. It is with this allegation, the writ petition

has been filed praying for a direction to the respondents to accept

the demand draft and grant admission.

2. However, counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent

submits that the petitioner did not report at their office as

claimed. It is stated that the petitioner enquired with the 3rd

respondent on 12/9/2010 whether they were willing to accept the

demand draft and that as time specified had already expired,

they had informed her about their inability to accede to the

request.

3. Petitioner has not placed anything on record to prove

that the demand draft was tendered to the 3rd respondent before

WPC No. 28559/2010
:2 :

5 p.m. on 11/9/2010.

4. For that reason as also in view of the contention raised

by the 3rd respondent, this Court will not be justified in directing

the 3rd respondent to accept the demand draft of the petitioner at

this distance of time.

Writ petition is dismissed.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp