IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Restoration Appn. No. 559 of 2010 In Writ Petition No. 545 of 2010 (M/S) unny Saini and 45 others. S ...…………. Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand & four others ...…………. Respondents Mr. Girish Agnihotri, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. Shobhit Saharia and Ms. Binayjeet Sheoran, Advocates, present for applicants / writ petitioners Mr. M.C. Tiwari, Addl. C.S.C., present for respondent No. 1. Mrs. Anjali Bhargava, Advocate, present for respondent No. 2 (Medical Council of India). Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This is Restoration Application MCC No. 559 of 2010, for restoration of Writ Petition No. 545 of 2010 (M/S), which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 12.07.2010. 2) Heard, and perused the affidavit filed with the restoration application, wherein absence on the date 2 fixed is sufficiently explained. The application is within time. 3) Therefore, the restoration application is allowed. The writ petition is restored to its original number. 4) Also, heard on merits of the writ petition, on the request of learned counsel for the writ petitioners. 5) By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought following reliefs: i) a writ, order or direction especially in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to allow the petitioners to complete their MBBS Course in the respondent’s Institute (as the petitioners have already deposited the heavy fee and studied for two years i.e. 2008-09 and 2009-10). ii) a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to adjust the petitioners in some other institute / college which is duly approved by the MCI. iii) a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the compensation to the petitioners for the undue loss and 3 harassment suffered by the petitioners without any wrong on their part. iv) any other writ, order or direction to the respondents as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and appropriate in the light of facts and circumstances pleaded / mentioned in the present writ petition. v) dispense with the service of advance notices upon the respondents. vi) exempt the petitioner from filing of the original / certified copies of the Annexures as the same are not readily available with the petitioner. vii) Award cost of the writ petition in favour of the petitioners. 6) Brief facts of the case are that the writ petitioners, who are students of Sri Narayan Swami Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Dehradun, got admission in MBBS Course in the year 2008. However, said Institute was not a recognized Institute by the Medical Council of India (for short M.C.I.). In substance, they have pleaded that they should be allowed to continue their studies in some other recognized college, as they have already paid heavy fee 4 to the College, after getting admission. On behalf of the petitioners it is contended that the petitioners were misled by the Essentiality Certificate issued by the H.N.B. Garhwal University in favour of the College. 7) Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the affidavits and counter affidavits filed by the parties, this Court is of the view that if the prayer made by the petitioners is allowed, it would amount permitting back door entry in the recognized Medical Colleges, as the petitioners were never admitted in any of the Medical Institutes recognized by the M.C.I. As far as the Essentiality Certificate is concerned, the Deputy Registrar of the H.N.B. Garhwal University cannot be said to be the proper authority who could have issued No Objection / Essentiality Certificate on behalf of the State Government, as such, said document cannot be said to be of any help to the petitioners. It is possible that the petitioners got misled and took admission in an unrecognized College, and paid heavy fee, but merely these facts are not sufficient to allow them to be admitted in other medical institutes recognized by the M.C.I. It has come on the record in the affidavits that Sri Narayan Swami Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Dehradun (respondent No. 5) was neither an Institute recognized by Medical council of India, at time of the admissions of the writ petitioners, nor is it recognized at present. 5 8) In the above circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioners. Therefore, the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. As far as the compensation sought by the writ petitioners is concerned, they are at liberty to approach the Consumer Forum / Tribunal, in the matter, if they so like. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. July 20, 2010. H. Negi 6