THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.15665 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner appeared in the EAMCET – 2009, and secured rank – 5117. He belongs to BC ‘E’ category, and intended to secure a seat under ‘B’ category in the Deccan College of Medical Sciences, the 2nd respondent herein; in the I Year of M.B.B.S. The 2nd respondent issued a notification, stating that applications for admission can be obtained and submitted between 24th and 26th of July, 2009, on payment of Rs.500/-, through demand draft. The petitioner states that he went to the college on all the three days, but the officials did not supply the form. He contends that having wrongfully denied application form, the 2nd respondent admitted candidates, who have secured far inferior rank, than him. The 2nd respondent filed a counter-affidavit, denying the allegations. It is stated that the applications were put in the website, and the petitioner did not approach the college, at all. It is also stated that the petitioner did not even take out demand draft. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner wanted to secure admission in the I year M.B.B.S., of the 2nd respondent-college. The record discloses that the rank obtained by him would enable him to secure that seat. The only controversy is, as to whether the petitioner was denied application form for admission. While the petitioner asserts that he was not supplied the application form, in spite of requests, the respondents flatly denied the same. An important development is that, on a complaint submitted by the petitioner, the 1st respondent-University refused to approve the admissions of candidates admitted under ‘B’ category, in the 2nd respondent-college. This Court would have certainly believed the version of the petitioner, had he taken out a demand draft, at the relevant point of time, for supply of the application form. Though the supply of application form is in the hands of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner could have certainly secured the demand draft from any Bank. The very fact that he has not taken out demand draft, adds strength to the version of the 2nd respondent, that he did not approach them for the application form, at all. Therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.04-11-2009. KO