IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 2ND ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 28559 of 2010(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- RAISA S., CHAKKOLA, 1/510-8, THEKKEKARA ESTATE, KIZHAKKUMPATTUKARA, EAST FORT, THRISSUR-680005. BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI SRI.I.SHAHUL HAMEED RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-33. 2. COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS, TRIVANDRUM-5. 3. KERALA PRIVATE MEDICAL COLLEGE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION, INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS CENTRE, LMS COMPOUND, TRIVANDRUM-33. 4. ADMISSION SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE FOR PROFESSIONAL COLLEGES, RAM MOHAN PALACE, (OLD HIGH COURT BUILDING, HALL NO.VIII), ERNAKULAM-35. ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP FOR R3 SRI.V.VIJULAL FOR R3 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 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