1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO.309 OF 2010 Shobhit Sunilkumar Bansal ..Petitioner V/s. Indian Institute of Technology ..Respondents & anr. Mr.Tushar Bhawsar i/b.Mr.Dushyant Purekar, Advocate, for the petitioner Ms.Nityoah Mehta with Mr.A.I.Talegawkar i/b.M/s.Bhaishanker Kanga & Giridharlal, Advocate, for the respondents CORAM : J. N. PATEL & C. L. PANGARKAR, JJ. DATE : 18TH FEBRUARY, 2010 P.C. . Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This Writ Petition is filed by a student, who passed his CBSE examination and wanted to appear for Joint Entrance Examination. His application for the said examination came to be rejected on the ground that the application did not reach respondent 2 No.1 in time as mentioned in the Brochure. The delay was caused due to the fact that his mother was unwell. It is contended that the hard copy of the application could not be sent within time and sending of such hard copy could not be said to be mandatory in view of the fact that there is a provision to forward the application On-line. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contends that when there is a provision for sending the application On -line, there is no reason for respondent No.1 to have a hard copy and sending the same within time as mentioned in the brochure would be redundant. According to him, the Brochure dated 9th December, 2009, applies only to the applications which are filed and sent Off- line. The submission of the learned counsel that there is no need to send the hard copy of the application as envisaged in the Brochure to respondent No.1 cannot be accepted. 3 Besides completing the formality of sending application, there are other formalities which are required to be completed by the petitioner  student. One of such formality is to forward self addressed envelope as well as Marksheet and a Challan of the deposit of the amount. Unless and until all these documents are forwarded, no application could said to be complete in all respect. It is for this reason that respondent No.1 should have a hard copy alongwith these documents. 4. The contention that there is no date fixed for On-line application cannot be accepted when brochure itself mentions date of receipt of completed applications as 19th December, 2009. It must be said as a necessary corollary that the said date applies to the On-line as well as Off-line applications. The brochure does not make a distinction between On-line and Off-line applications. Therefore, the only conclusion 4 that can be drawn is that this date applies to both the applications. Admittedly, the application of the petitioner did not reach respondent No.1 within time. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the decision of respondent No.1. In the circumstances, we do not find any substance in the Writ Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. (J. N. PATEL, J.) (C. L. PANGARKAR, J.)