MC 168/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE U.B. SAHA The instant Misc. application is filed by the writ petitioner for acceptance of the bond submitted by him in terms of the direction of this court dated 6.1.2011 passed in W.P.(C) No.6595 of 2010 wherein this court after taking note of claus es 6 and 7 of the agreement directed that subject to furnishing a bond on or bef ore 11.1.2011, the petitioner be permitted to apply in response to the education al notice published in the Assam Tribune dated 31.12.2010 for admission to PG Co urses in the Medical Colleges of Assam for the session 2011 and after receipt of the above bond and upon due satisfaction of the Mission Director, NRHM, the pet itioner’s application be accepted, although the last date for admission stipulat ed as 8.1.2011. In terms of the aforesaid order, though the petitioner submitted a bond on 11.1. 2011, but the same was not accepted by the authority being he was not satisfied. Thereafter, as per the requirement of the authority, the petitioner put another condition in the bond and submitted the same on 12.1.2011 though it was signed on 11.1.2011. The same was also not accepted by the authority Hence this Misc. application. Heard Mr. K.Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D.Saikia, learne d Standing Counsel, Health Department, Govt. of Assam. Mr. Saikia while resisting the contention made in this Misc. application contend ed that though the petitioner signed the bond on 11.1.2011 and submitted the sam e before the authority on 12.1.2011, but he forced the authority concerned to ac cept the same showing the date of receipt as on 11.1.2011, while the authority d id not accept the request of the petitioner, he took away the said bond without filing the same to the authority. Therefore, the concerned authority could not a ccept the same and the contentions made in the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner in the instant Misc. application are also not correct, rather it is fraud on the court. Mr. Agarwal while countering the submission of Mr. Saikia submitted that the pet itioner whether signed the bond document on 11.1.2011 or 12.1.2011 that was not the issue, the issue was that though this court permitted the petitioner to subm it the same before the concerned authority, the authority did not accept the sai d bond only on the flimsy ground even when the petitioner satisfied the conditio n as mentioned by this court in its order dated 6.1.2011. As a result, the autho rity indirectly is flouting this court’s order dated 6.1.2011. Upon hearing the learned counsel of both sides and on going through the records, it is ordered that whatever the issue involved in the instant Misc. case that w ould be taken into consideration at the time of hearing of the main writ petitio n, but the authority (respondent No.2) should accept the bond of the petitioner subject to the same is submitted by the petitioner to the concerned authority by today itself. On acceptance of the same, the respondent No.2 shall communicate the same to the Controller of Examinations, Srimanta Sankaradeva University of H ealth Services forthwith who on satisfaction should allow the petitioner to appe ar in the examination as ordered by this court on 6.1.2011. The parties are at liberty to rely on the statements as well as in the affidavit s filed by the rival parties in this Misc. case at the time of hearing of the wr it petition. With the aforesaid direction, this Misc. application is disposed of.