ORDER 1. THE PETITIONER PARTICIPATED IN THE COMMON ENTRANCE TEST CALLED ASSOCET 2004 HELD ON 30-5-2004 FOR ADMISSION TO MBBS COURSE TO THE COLLEGES MAINTAINED BY RESPONDENT 2 ASSOCIATION. HE OBTAINED 134 MARKS IN THE SAID TEST. HE APPLIED FOR ADMISSION TO A FEW COLLEGES INCLUDING NDMVP SAMAJS MEDICAL COLLEGE, RESPONDENT 5 HEREIN, FOR ADMISSION OUT OF "OUTSIDE MAHARASHTRA QUOTA CATEGORY". THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER WAS ALSO FORWARDED TO RESPONDENT 5 BY RESPONDENT 4 SAMITI/COMMITTEE, IN TERMS OF THE LETTER DATED 23-9-2004. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE PETITIONERS APPLICATION WAS RECEIVED BY RESPONDENT 5 COLLEGE ON 24-9-2004. ACCORDING TO THE PETITIONER, HE HAD, IN FACT, SENT THE APPLICATION BY SPEED POST THROUGH THE POST OFFICE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF POSTS ON 23-8-2004. ACCORDING TO THE REPORT OF THE POST OFFICE, ON RESPONDENT 5 REFUSING TO TAKE THE DELIVERY, THE POSTAL ARTICLE WAS SENT BACK. IT IS THEREAFTER THAT THE PETITIONERS APPLICATION WAS SENT TO RESPONDENT 5 THROUGH RESPONDENT 4. COMMITTEE/SAMITI WHICH WAS APPROACHED BY THE PETITIONER. THE STAND OF RESPONDENT 5 IS THAT IT IS MAKING ENQUIRIES FROM THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES. WE ARE SURPRISED AT THIS STAND TAKEN BY RESPONDENT 5. THE STAND THAT THE ARTICLE WAS DELIVERED BACK TO THE PETITIONER ON RESPONDENT 5S REFUSAL WAS TAKEN IN THE WRIT PETITION FILED IN NOVEMBER 2004. IN THE COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT FILED IN MAY 2005 THE STAND TAKEN WAS THAT SUCH ENQUIRIES FROM POSTAL AUTHORITIES ARE BEING MADE AND WE ARE NOW TOWARDS THE END OF SEPTEMBER 2005, THE STAND REMAINS THE SAME THAT STILL ENQUIRIES ARE BEING MADE FROM THE POSTAL ATHORITIES IN REGARD TO THE RETURN OF THE ARTICLE. BE THAT AS IT MAY, IT IS ADMITTED THAT THE PETITIONERS APPLICATION WAS RECEIVED ON 24-9-2004 ABOVE NOTED. IT ALSO STANDS ADMITTED THAT VARIOUS CANDIDATES WHO HAD SECURED MARKS LESS THAN THE PETITIONER WERE GRANTED ADMISSION AFTER 24-9-2004. TO THAT, THE STAND TAKEN BY THE COLLEGE IS THAT ADMISSION FOR THE CANDIDATES WHO SECURED MARKS FROM 134 TO 129 WAS OVER IN THE 3RD MERIT LIST ON 23-9-2004 AT 4.00 P.M. AND SINCE THE PETITIONERS APPLICATION WAS RECEIVED ONLY ON 24-9-2004 WHEN THE NEXT MERIT LIST WAS PUBLISHED FOR GIVING ADMISSION TO THOSE WHO SECURED MARKS FROM 12-9-119, IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO GIVE ADMISSION TO THE PETITIONER WHO FAILED TO AVAIL THE OPPORTUNITY OF TAKING ADMISSION BY THE DUE DATE. 2. 2. FROM THE DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COLLEGE ITSELF IT IS CLEAR THAT THIS STAND HAS BEEN TAKEN ONLY TO DENY ADMISSION TO THE PETITIONER FOR WHAT MOTIVE, THE COLLEGE KNOWS BETTER. IT IS NOTEWORTHY TO MENTION THAT ANNEXURE R5-4 FILED BY THE COLLEGE STIPULATES THAT THE CANDIDATES SECURING MARKS FROM 129 TO 119 SHOULD REPORT ON OR BEFORE 24-9-2004. HOWEVER, THE COLLEGE HAS NOT GIVEN THE DATES ON WHICH THOSE STUDENTS WERE GIVEN ADMISSION. THE SAID INFORMATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED BY MCI FROM THE LIST GIVEN BY THE COLLEGE TO MC!. FROM THAT LIST, IT SEEMS EVIDENT THAT THE ADMISSION GRANTED TO MOST OF THE STUDENTS WAS ON 29-9-2004 AND 30-9-2004. EXCEPT FOR STRAY ADMISSIONS GRANTED EARLIER, A LARGE NUMBER OF SUBSTANTIAL CANDIDATES WERE GRANTED ADMISSIONS ONLY ON THE LAST TWO DATES, NAMELY, 29-9-2004 AND, 30-9-2004. IT IS NOT DIFFICULT TO CONCEIVE THE REASON WHY THE PETITIONER WAS DENIED ADMISSION WHEN, ADMITTEDLY, HIS APPLICATION WAS RECEIVED ON 24-9-2004 AND ADMISSION TO MANY CANDIDATES WHO SECURED MUCH LESS MARKS WAS GRANTED ON 29-9-2004 AND 30-9-2004. 3. WE ARE NOT EXAMINING THE ADMISSION GRANTED TO ONE SHIKHA DINESH SOOD WITH 102 MARKS ON 29-9-2004 FOR THE REASON THAT THE DISPUTE IN REGARD TO THE SAID CANDIDATE HAS BEEN EXAMINED BY THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT AND IS NOT THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE PRESENT WRIT PETITION. FURTHER, THE SAID CANDIDATE HAS ALREADY SPENT ONE YEAR IN HER MBBS COURSE. 4. LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING FOR RESPONDENT 5 COLLEGE ADMITS THAT FOR THE PRESENT ACADEMIC YEAR 2005-2006, SEATS ARE STILL AVAILABLE WITHIN THE SANCTIONED INTAKE OF THE COLLEGE FOR, ADMISSION TO CANDIDATES OUT OF THE CATEGORY TO WHICH THE PETITIONER HAD FILED HIS APPLICATION WHICH WAS RECEIVED BY THE COLLEGE ON 24_9-2004 IN THE MANNER AFORE NOTED. 5. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DIRECT RESPONDENT 5 COLLEGE TO GIVE ADMISSION TO THE PETITIONER OUT OF THE SAID INTAKE AND UNDER THE CATEGORY TO WHICH THE PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED AS PER THE POSITION IN THE LAST ACADEMIC YEAR 2004-2005. THE SAID COLLEGE IS FURTHER DIRECTED TO CHARGE FROM THE PETITIONER THE FEE WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED IF ADMISSION HAD BEEN GRANTED IN ACADEMIC YEAR 2004-2005. THE ADMISSION SHALL BE GRANTED BEFORE 30-9-2005. THE PETITIONER SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL THE REQUIREMENTS. 6. THE SAID COLLEGE IS FURTHER DIRECTED TO CHARGE FROM THE PETITIONER THE FEE WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED IF ADMISSION HAD BEEN GRANTED IN ACADEMIC YEAR 2004-2005. THE ADMISSION SHALL BE GRANTED BEFORE 30-9-2005. THE PETITIONER SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL THE REQUIREMENTS. 6. ON THE QUESTION OF COMPENSATION/PENALTY OR GIVING ANY OTHER DIRECTIONS INCLUDING DERECOGNITION TO SUCH COLLEGES FOR DENIAL OF ADMISSION TO MERITORIOUS STUDENTS AND GRANTING ADMISSION TO LESS MERITORIOUS STUDENTS, THE PARTIES SHALL ADDRESS THE COURT ON THE NEXT DATE OF HEARING. 7. THE PARTIES ARE PERMITTED TO PLACE ON RECORD FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE DECISION ON THE SAID POINT ANY FURTHER MATERIAL WHICH THEY MAY DEEM FIT, JUST AND PROPER. 8. LIST THE PETITION AFTER ONE MONTH TO CONSIDER THIS ISSUE. 9. LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT THE PETITION HAS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AND SEEKS LEAVE TO WITHDRAW THE SAME. IT IS DISMISSED AS SUCH. COURT MASTERS