THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.No.22425 of 2011 ORDER : This Writ Petition has been filed complaining the action of the respondents in failing to admit the petitioner to MBBS course for the academic year 2011-2012. The petitioner, who failed to secure admission to MBBS course in the EAMCET even though secured 006987 rank, sought admission in the 2nd respondent- medical college run by the 1st respondent-society by responding to the admission notification for category ‘C’ seat falling under the management quota. She was not given admission since she failed to comply with the conditions stipulated by the 1st respondent. 2. The undisputed facts are that the 1st respondent-society issued a public notification, dated 07-07-2011 inviting applications from the interested candidates for admission into 1st year MBBS course for the academic year 2011-12. The petitioner submitted her application in response thereto. She was provisionally selected and her name was included in the provisional select list displayed on 14-07-2011. However, the petitioner was not given admission purportedly on the ground that she failed to submit original certificates and pay the fees for the 1st year course within the stipulated time. 3. Before appreciating the case, the conditions stipulated are required to be noticed, which are as follows : (i) The list of selected candidates will be displayed on all the notice boards in the campus of the Institute on 14-07-2011 at 5.00 PM. (ii) The selected candidates shall (a) submit all original certificates as per the above enclosures. (b) Shall pay an amount of Rs.5.5 lakhs being fee for the 1st year i.e., academic year 2011-12. (c) Furnish an irrevocable bank guarantee issued by any Nationalized Bank as per the format of the Institution for an amount of Rs.22 lakhs towards the balance fee payable by the candidate for the remaining years. (d) Shall pay University Registration Fee and other fees as permitted by the University. (e) Complete all the formalities of payment of fees and submission of original certificates of the enclosures on or before 16-07-2011 by 4.00 p.m. 4. As per the above stipulations a candidate who has been provisionally selected is under an obligation to submit all original certificates and pay fee of Rs.5.5 lakhs for the 1st year academic year i.e., 2011-12, besides furnishing irrevocable bank guarantee and complete all the formalities on or before 16-07-2011 by 4 PM. The petitioner does not dispute her obligation in this regard. 5. It is the case of the petitioner, both as pleaded and presented at the hearing, that she complied with all the requirements including the payment of the requisite fee and submission of original certificates. According to her, she obtained a Demand Draft dated 16-07-2011 for Rs.5.5 lakhs representing fee and an irrevocable bank guarantee dated 16-07-2011 for Rs.22,00,000/- towards the balance fee for the remaining period of study from the Bank of India, L.B.Nagar Branch, Hyderabad. She met the Chairman of the 2nd respondent-institute for handing over the original certificates and demand drafts and she was informed to leave the bank guarantee with the 2nd respondent for verification purpose. Accordingly, she handed over the bank guarantee to the 2nd respondent, but the 2nd respondent had selectively taken the bank guarantee only stating that the original documents would be taken after getting verified the genuineness of the bank guarantee. Thus, the petitioner complied with the requirements. 6. Counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. The counter-affidavit inter alia states that the petitioner was provisionally selected by placing her name at serial No.8 and that the selection was subject to the fulfillment of the aforesaid conditions which were required to be complied with on or before 16-07-2011 by 4 PM. It is denied that the petitioner met the Chairman of the 2nd Respondent and that she was instructed to leave the bank guarantee with the 2nd respondent. It is further stated that the petitioner submitted only the bank guarantee, but failed to pay the 1st year fee and submit original certificates within the stipulated time. It is denied that the 2nd respondent has selectively taken the bank guarantee only. Thus, as the petitioner failed to comply with the conditions, she was not given admission. Therefore, the next meritorious candidate available as per the merit has been admitted. It is stated that after following the entire procedure in transparent manner in accordance with the relevant rules, admissions were completed and the students have been attending the classes from 01-08-2011. The bank guarantee was returned to the petitioner. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for relief in the writ petition. 7. I have given my earnest consideration to the aforesaid contentions. 8. There is no controversy as regards the petitioner’s provisional selection and compliance with other conditions. The controversy as may be inferred from the facts revolves around whether the petitioner had complied with the conditions and completed the formalities by paying the fee for the 1st year course and submitted her original certificates on or before 16-07-2011 by 4 PM. It may be mentioned that this being essentially a question of fact, the petitioner should establish by placing some material instead of relying on her assertions. In the absence of any material, mere ipsi dixit statement of the petitioner, particularly when respondents have denied, cannot be the basis for recording a conclusion in her favour. Indisputably, the petitioner has not placed any material in that regard. 9. On the other hand, even as per the averment of the petitioner in her affidavit she only gave the original bank guarantee to the 2nd respondent, which the 2nd respondent had taken allegedly for getting genuineness of the bank guarantee verified. The petitioner submitted a representation, dated 04-08-2011 to the 3rd respondent-university. The 3rd respondent-university caused an enquiry through a committee. The said committee submitted a report which disclosed that there was no evidence for the submission of the Demand Draft dated 16-07-2011 for Rs.5.5 lakhs and the originals to the college. 10. In the absence of material produced by the petitioner, and considering the report of the committee, the only inference that can be drawn is that the petitioner did not pay the 1st year fee and submit the original certificates before the stipulated time. It may be true that she might have obtained Demand Draft on 16-07-2011, but no inference can be drawn from it that it was actually submitted. No motives are attributed to the respondents in declining to receive the fees and the originals. It could be possible that the petitioner might not have submitted the Demand Draft for a variety of reasons. It is possible that she was trying for admission elsewhere in a better college. The risk of losing the amount once paid, besides the original certificates getting stuck up with the Respondent No.2-College might have deterred the petitioner from paying the fee and submitting the certificates. 11. In the light of the aforesaid facts, particularly in the absence of any clinching material in favour of the petitioner, it is not possible to accept the contention that the petitioner had complied with the conditions. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought for in the writ petition. In the circumstances above, the Writ Petition is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 12. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. October, 2011. skmr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.No.22425 of 2011 Date : -10-2011 Between : Nomula Harshika Nehta .. Petitioner and M/s.Kamineni Education Society, rep. by its Secretary, 103, Kanchanjunga Complex, King Koti, Hyderabad & 2 Others .. Respondents