JUDGMENT : MANSOOR AHMAD MIR, J. 1. Respondent No. 1 has already filed reply. Mr. Romesh Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, stated at the Bar that reply on behalf of respondent No. 4 stands filed before the Registry. The Registry to trace and place the same on record. 2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1-College argued that respondent No. 1 has complied with the directions passed by this Court and granted admission to the petitioners, after execution of the undertaking by the petitioners, in terms of the order dated 20.09.2016. Further argued that respondent No. 1 has already approached the State-Authority for revision of admission fee and other ancillary fee and the matter is still pending, be directed to decide the issue, as early as possible, after hearing respondent No. 1. 3. Virtually, the reliefs sought by the petitioners stand granted to them in terms of the order dated 20.09.2016, subject to the undertaking, which the petitioners have executed. 4. In the given circumstances, the State Authority, i.e. respondent No. 4 is directed to examine the request of respondent No. 1 and make a decision within six weeks from today, after hearing it. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of alongwith pending applications. Copy dasti.