1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.3374/2011 [Sarang Rajesh Raut .vrs. The State of Maharashtra and another] ................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................................... CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND P.D. KODE, JJ. DATE : AUGUST 12, 2011. Heard Shri Atul Pande, learned counsel with Shri N.B. Kalwaghe, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri J.B. Jaiswal, learned AGP for respondent no.1/State and Shri A.V. Khare, learned counsel for respondent no.2. The petitioner forwarded his application for admission to MBBS (BDS) course with respondent no. 2 – Association of Managements of Un-Aided Private Medical and Dental Colleges, Maharashtra, Mumbai for Academic Session 2011-2012. The petitioner has cleared ASSO-CET 2011 examination as per result dated 21.6.2011. 2 The petitioner forwarded his application by ordinary post from Bhandara on 20.6.2011. It is not in dispute that it was received by respondent no.2 at Mumbai on 17.7.2011 and since it was beyond time the same was sent back. The petitioner then made a representation to competent authority on 13.7.2011 as contemplated by Clause 2.3 of Admission Rules and that representation/grievance has not been looked into so far. In this background, Advocate Shri Pande relies upon provisions of Rule 11.5 to urge that submission of such application through post is permitted by respondent no.2 and, therefore, the postal agency became agent of respondent no.2. The form was delivered to agent on 20.6.2011 itself and hence its receipt by respondent no.2 by 7.7.2011 is in consequential. He further contends that grievance made in this respect has not been looked into by the competent authority in discharge of its obligation under Rule 2.3. He also relies upon the judgment in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay South, Bombay .vrs. Messers Ogale Glass Works Limited, Ogale Wadi, AIR 1954 SC 429 particularly observation therein in paragraph 15. 3 Advocate Shri Khare for respondent no.2 states that Clause 11.5 does not contemplate submission of application only through post and various other modes are also available. He, therefore, contends that post office does not became agent of respondent no.2. He has further pointed out that communication through post was directed to be by speed post with warning that in any case the application must reach respondent no.2 on or before 30.6.2011 and that application received thereafter would not be considered. Because of this express warning, according to him, the above ruling of Hon’ble Apex Court has no application. He further states that there are no reasons given as to why application could not be sent through modes, as suggested under Rule 11.5. According to him, as the admission rounds have already started, addition of any name at this stage is going to create serious problem and confusion. Learned AGP for respondent no.1 has supported the argument of learned counsel for respondent no.2. Perusal of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court reveals that there the cheques were called for through 4 post only and it is in that background the Hon’ble Apex Court found that postal department is the agent of addressee. Here, perusal of Rule 11.5 shows that the petitioner was given option to submit his form either by speed post or then through courier or in person. It was mentioned that the form duly filled in should reach the office of respondent no.2 on or before 30.6.2011 and form received thereafter would not be considered. In spite of this, the petitioner has not sent the form through speed post. He has not given any reason for not forwarding the form by speed post. Contention before us is when form was not accepted by respondent no.2 at Mumbai on 7.7.2011, it was received back by the petitioner at Bhandara within five days i.e. on 12.7.2011. In other words, it is urged that form was handed over to Post Office on 20.6.2011 i.e. at least 10 days before last date and sufficient precaution was thus taken by the petitioner while handing over it to postal department. The petitioner has not disclosed circumstance in which he could not send the form by speed post. Thus, not sending form through speed post as directed by respondent no.2 is apparent on record and there is no justification on the part of the petitioner in not 5 complying with this condition. Hence, argument that the postal department had become agent of respondent no.2 cannot be looked into. Here, when express instructions given by respondent no.2 has not been followed, postal department cannot become its agent. By handing over form to postal department and by forwarding it by ordinary post, the petitioner has taken a risk. We, therefore, are not inclined to interfere in this petition. The petition is rejected. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE Gulande