ORDER : 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner - Rajesh Manibhai Patel, inter alia, praying for awarding financial damage to the tune of Rs.7,50,000/-. It would be proper to reproduce the prayers of petitioner, which are as under:- “8. Due to action/inaction of respective authorities flouting their own guidelines and further Laws overreaching powers and violating Article[14] vis-a-vis other Applicants, kindly award the Financial damage to tune of Rs.750,000.00 caused due to immediate direct consequences despite the best of the efforts and which were constantly been avoided by the Applicant against all odds and available means and despite the representations made to all the respondents here who were apprised of the same, but in vain. 9. Any relief Hon Court deems and see fit considering the avalanche of deliberate systemic and systematic harassment caused through statutory overreach and perpetrated by various Government Authorities abusing the Authorities thus as deemed and culminated goons.” 9 (a) AWARD THE AMOUNT FROM MYSY IMMDLY FOR ULTRAVIRES CONDUCT” 2. The basis for making the aforementioned prayers is paragraphs 2 to 7 of the petition memo, which are as under:- “2. The Applicant has been applying for the Scholarships available to Students of extra caliber since beginning as made available and now the question is being raised for the fourth renewal even after getting verified as per guidelines, but as later out of whims and fancy, may be as an afterthought made to be defined as Sahay which in-fact in reality a cleverly well disguised part refund of excess fees collected from Parents in the first place and the facts will be out if scrutinised thoroughly through rigourous finance audit of the whole matter, let alone parents were compelled and required to shell out hefty additional private coaching classes fees inevitable for real education for such a critical professional education. 3. The guidelines provided by MYSY Cell, set up for disbursement of the so-called scholarship as standards and guidelines were repeatedly diluted besides KCG and Secretary Higher & Technical Education in later redefined as Sahay, which is clearly an afterthought for an entirely different issue which is a subject matter of another petition as being forced upon the parents and students were pursuing Degree in Medicine at Self Financed Institutes. 4. 4. The Honourable Court will find it otherwise for the Applicant as it has been dealt and disbursed with; not only on time scale but also for the amount concerned with, vis-a-vis guideline (Annexure-”A”), Documents & laws which are attached herewith along with the latest communication through email from KCG through competent official which itself is extra constitutional as ostensibly contemptuous of the fundamental rights guaranteed under article 21 as it could get (Annexure-”B”). 5. The delay which has caused too much damage as there is a collective powerful effort abusing the various authorities to materialise financial ruin for the applicant as the most powerful people have made a concerted effort so as to hide various illegal activities under the aegis of the public and private financial institutions which are made to serve the people a legitimate beneficial product and not the other-way around and otherwise. Especially when State is exercising both but mutually conflicting roles as if whenever convenient change the side of the game for en-cashing the benefits. 6. I have also tried to communicate the same to then Acting Chief Justice for all the possibly connected harassment at the hand of various Authority acting in concert through various illegal interference in due process and messing with legal and fundamental rights of the Applicant on 24-06-2019. 7. I most humbly request the Hon. Court to intervene and issue a carte blanche order for addressing the harassment deliberately caused to the Applicant and intertwined in concert at the hands of various Authorities including lower castes Quasi-Judicial being Mamlatdar/Prant Officer Courts even when Contemptuous to the Hon. Supreme Court of India orders shared with them nonetheless, moreover Consumer Courts and even before Gandhinagar District Sessions Court in collusion with Police Dept,, besides the other authorities in public and private domain which are either being compelled or willingly participating in the concerted effort to target the Applicant which has probably continued after the Applicant’s father who has not been given the dues even from 1986–87 and henceforth till his sad early demise due to immense harassment faced despite discharging the utmost duties ignoring the negative repercussions despite envisaged and senior officials apprised of beforehand.” 3. The respondent nos.1 and 2 have appeared and filed the reply, raising objections. The respondent nos.1 and 2 have appeared and filed the reply, raising objections. One of the preliminary objections raised is to the effect that the petition deserves to be rejected on the ground that the petition is not maintainable and the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner, cannot be granted inasmuch as, no constitutional much less any statutory right of the petitioner has been violated. It is stated that the son of the petitioner had applied for scholarship under the “Mukhyamantri Yuva Swavlamban Yojna” (hereinafter referred to as ‘the MYSY scheme’) for pursuing his M.B.B.S. degree at G.M.E.R.S. Medical College, Himmatnagar and the petitioner was granted renewal for the first, second and third year. Pursuant to the every renewal applications, read with clause 8(6) of the MYSY scheme, the documents are to be verified. It has been stated that during the 4th renewal, application was made and the respondent authorities, upon scrutiny found that the annual income as prescribed in the application, has been shown as Rs.3,50,000/- while income certificate states the income as Rs.1,95,000/-. Owing to the discrepancy, the respondent authority has addressed a letter dated 15.2.2020 to the petitioner requiring certain documents; however, the petitioner has not provided any documents as indicated in the said communication. Also, discrepancy arose out of the documents produced by the petitioner for, pursuant to amended Section 139 of the Income Tax Act an individual having income of more than Rs.2,50,000/- has to file Income Tax Return. It is also averred that the communication dated 15.2.2020, is not something which has been addressed without any basis, but the same is a result of in-depth scrutiny based upon the discrepancies which were noticed from the documents/certificates supplied along with the application. It is also stated that merely because certain information has been called for, does not for a moment suggest that the son of the petitioner would not be provided scholarship. However, owing to the discrepancies, the communication dated 15.2.2020 has been sent; however, the petitioner has till date, not reverted. 4. The petitioner has also filed the affidavit-in-rejoinder. Relevant paragraphs are reproduced herein below:- “2. However, owing to the discrepancies, the communication dated 15.2.2020 has been sent; however, the petitioner has till date, not reverted. 4. The petitioner has also filed the affidavit-in-rejoinder. Relevant paragraphs are reproduced herein below:- “2. Moreover; while strangely denying categorically that too under Affidavit, vide para-{2} of the same but providing the proofs of internal process of doing the same selectively, I must add; so much so that they have listed out the damages caused tantamount to the knowledge of the same, albeit it's another matter that he has admitted with volunteering the proofs which could only suggests that they all have over reach their jurisdictional and caused direct damages which now come to think of are amounting to easily almost Rs.15,250,000.00 if taken into account direct consequential financial fraud involving Financial Institutions (SBI and IDBI, etc.) and the Registry, through their similar sullied employees; ironically the word he is ascribing to the Applicant here vide para-{13}. The entire gamut is and has been acting in concert coordinating which is even enviable to the private sector for the manipulative prowess of the Indian State defied under Article [12], now all caught pants down. 3. Vide para-{3} asking for the opposing the admission of the petition and even without any interim relief in favour of the petitioner by way of deception and despicable, misleading and misinterpretation of facts, thus admitting the entire petitioned averments. Since the CONSOLIDATED Reply Affidavit FILED ON 04-12-2020 to which this is a para-wise Rejoinder, the Petitioner naturally file the Rejoinder to Reserved Right if granted at all. 4. Redundantly deceptive and misleading as Article [14] and [21] along with Income-tax Act S-139 (1)(b) r/w S-10 and their own guidelines and notice board are all violated which is consistent with prior conduct/misconduct all along. So the severe reprimand is in order as opposed what is said vide para-{4}. 5. Pretty clearly answered through above point against what is stated in para five. 6. It should be considered a missed opportunity as clearly do not consider taking it seriously what is stated in sommons-service documents and Order dated 26–10– 2020 of the Hon. Court to whom petitioner with utmost humility and candor request it to call it dilatory tactics even further harassment. 6. It should be considered a missed opportunity as clearly do not consider taking it seriously what is stated in sommons-service documents and Order dated 26–10– 2020 of the Hon. Court to whom petitioner with utmost humility and candor request it to call it dilatory tactics even further harassment. Whereas Petitioner hereby filed it para-wise to this deemed consolidated Reply Affidavit when he thinks there is no such thing but stated on record by the Government Pleader on 01–12– 2020 during proceedings and acknowledged by Honourable Court. 7. All the documents mentioned are their own which could be easily downloaded from their respective emails and/or even perusing their own record. 8. There are only two Annexures to the Petition besides Sequence of Events as indicated in Index itself: “A” and “B” since Annexures, “C”, “D” and “E” were taken out for Registry’s objection of them not as per format and could be furnished before the final hearing which petitioner believe it to be on 08-12-2020 as Ordered by Honorable Court vide Order dated 01-12-2020 along with the CA-2/2020, as may please all the parties to the matter. New Annexure “C” was filed as Urgent Note but now I gather; it’s not considered as part of Petition. 9. The statement has been complied and verified but as an afterthought the illegal and extra constitutional requirements were put forward for not processing out of harassment; knowingly as now admittedly, knowingly caused damages and contributed towards the financial scam and abetted insiders trading. 10. The argument put forward is to mislead the Honorable Court through confusion between 2017-18 and 2018-19 which at this level is absurd to say the least. 11. No communication other than 15-02-2020 was received by the Petitioner and furthermore at MYSY Director who referred to the same communication but refused to share the communication as internal. Thus it’s established that the Respondent No.2 is cleverly misleading the Honorable Court again here vide para{11} of the Affidavit in Reply. 12. The feigned ignorance and misstating the situation despite the clarification establishes the culpability for the action and/or inaction on part of all the Respondents when the Petitioner was made to run pillar to post who was at all cost fighting the financial scam by powerful entities/people which was identified by the Petitioner long back. 13. 12. The feigned ignorance and misstating the situation despite the clarification establishes the culpability for the action and/or inaction on part of all the Respondents when the Petitioner was made to run pillar to post who was at all cost fighting the financial scam by powerful entities/people which was identified by the Petitioner long back. 13. The para-{13} in the Affidavit is a figment of imagination which further proves that the Respondent No.2 has dug up the information from somewhere which is the contention of the Petitioner and establishes further the illegal working towards creating an excuse and reason for the Financial Institution to act upon the same which has been furnished by the Respondent No.2 here vide Annexure-R6 (not Annexure-R2-6) which is an admission of the fact that it’s on behalf of all the Respondents who could have avoided the Damages for the Petitioner rather than acted the way they did collectively. 14. Now beyond the submissions vide aforementioned Consolidated Reply Affidavit, The Income Tax Return is to be filed as per: (a) IT Act 1961 and not as per whims and fancy of Over reaching officials of subject matter and that too after detailed explanations. (b) The research that has gone into shows the planned collusion and deliberate harassment which has caused so much financial damage besides immensely painful mental, financial and social agony caused by these white-goons collectively. Besides it is the damage and subsequent liquidation when bigger INSIDER TRADING CHARGE which could not be filed by the Applicant here as all the requisite maximum Court- Fees (Rs. 75,000.00) allocated had to be diverted to pay for Tuition Fees for non-disbursal of scholarship in such precarious times. (c) The arguments do not end but to allege that Applicant/Petitioner here has come with sullied hands when themselves are fitting the allegation they are putting on the undersinged while misleading the Honorable Court once again through misrepresenting fact. This very act has to be reprimanded with granting the Application and its all prayer albeit exceed it to set an example out of it for others to refrain from in future for doing similar things which tantamount to gross misconduct on the part of Public Servants as they are after all. Now Finally the Petitioner would like to point out that on 01-12-2020 the Government Pleader Mr. Now Finally the Petitioner would like to point out that on 01-12-2020 the Government Pleader Mr. Joshi as conveyed and repeated by Honorable Court for filing a consolidated Affidavit on behalf of all the Respondents for ascertaining the Roles they may have played. The Mysterious circumstances of House break-in and destroying all the avenues of livelihoods for Applicant/Petitioner here through destroying multiple property with impunity besides other harassment have fortified the Conspiracy and now established beyond doubt, involving various State Authorities including Government/Private Authorities acting in collusion, acting as Goons as substantiated by filing of two false and concocted cases (ATRO No.31/2019, FIR No.11216007200565?:29OCT2020, both similarly fabricated and some unnecessarily imposed either as Respondent (Prant Officer: RTS-D/GDHAN/82/2019, CC/61581/2017 filed by RoC@CMM, Ahmedabad) whereas far more serious matters perpetrated by them are handled differently and at play all along with impunity and shamelessly.” 5. In the aforesaid backdrop, learned party-in-person has made various submissions on merits as well as raised allegations and insinuations against the respondent authorities. This Court could cull out from the submissions made by the learned party-in-person, gist whereof is as under:– 5.1 That the son of the petitioner had applied for scholarship which was renewed for three years; however, during the fourth renewal, the authority concerned, only with a view to harassing the petitioner and his son, has raised objections, While doing so, documents have been demanded, which have no relevance for processing the application for scholarship. That the documents and the details required vide communication dated 15.2.2020, are nothing but an act which is unconstitutional and ostensibly contemptuous of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India to the petitioner. 5.2 That list of documents, required for the renewal application, were provided. Also, the Income Certificate issued by the office of Taluka Development Officer shows the income of the petitioner as Rs.1,95,000/- which was issued in the year 2018 and would remain in currency for a period of 3 years. That dividend income from domestic company is exempted as it would be governed by Section 115BBDA. That the self declaration certificate issued by the petitioner indicates that his income for the year 2018-2019 (Assessment Year 2019– 2020) is Rs.3,50,000/-. That dividend income from domestic company is exempted as it would be governed by Section 115BBDA. That the self declaration certificate issued by the petitioner indicates that his income for the year 2018-2019 (Assessment Year 2019– 2020) is Rs.3,50,000/-. As per section 139 of the Income Tax Act, it has been declared that the income of Rs.3,50,000/- is not taxable and is exempted and since it is not to be considered, there arises no question of filing the income tax return. 5.3 Despite providing the self-declaration certificate, the issuance of communication dated 15.2.2020 and asking the petitioner to provide the PAN card of his wife; other bank account details for the period from 1.4.2018 to 31.3.2019 and the supporting documents to substantiate the income of Rs.3,50,000/- it being not taxable, such communication is nothing but an attempt on the part of the respondent authority to harass the petitioner and his son, causing immense financial damage. 5.4 That during the fourth renewal, the issue raised by the authority concerned was clarified indicating that as per the provisions of Section 10 of the Income Tax Act, income of the petitioner, is excluded from the net of the income tax and therefore, the income would be NIL, which is below Rs.2,50,000/- and therefore, exempted from income tax, not requiring to file any income tax return and declaration. During the time of the submission of the application, the same was verified at the end of the respondent authorities. If at all the respondent authority is willing to inquire about the income tax return, it is open for them to approach the Income Tax Department, if they so desire, and it would be open for him to pursue his remedy. 5.5 That the MYSY scheme provides for disbursement of the scholarship, however, the Knowledge Consortium of Gujarat (hereinafter referred to as the ‘KCG’) and Secretary, Higher & Technical Education have redefined the MYSY scheme, which is nothing but an afterthought for an entirely different issue. Such issue is the subject matter of another petition, which is forced upon the parents and students pursuing the degree in medicine and self-finance institutions. That the petitioner has been applying for the scholarship available to the students with bright career and all the details were made available; however, during the fourth renewal, the question is being raised. Such issue is the subject matter of another petition, which is forced upon the parents and students pursuing the degree in medicine and self-finance institutions. That the petitioner has been applying for the scholarship available to the students with bright career and all the details were made available; however, during the fourth renewal, the question is being raised. Such conduct is nothing, but out of whims and fancies of the authorities concerned. 5.6 That for the reasons best known to the authorities concerned, irrelevant queries are being raised, which have been clarified earlier. That the demand for income tax return is nothing, but an attempt on the part of the respondent authority subjecting the petitioner and his son to undue harassment; only with a mala fide motive of stalling the process of the application. 5.7 It is urged that such action on the part of the respondent authorities is discriminatory and the same amounts to flouting their own guidelines, overreaching the powers. Under the circumstances, it is prayed that the respondents be directed to award financial damage to the tune of Rs.7,50,000/- caused at the hands of the respondent authorities. It is also prayed that the son of the petitioner be awarded scholarship from the MYSY scheme and the inaction be declared as ultra vires. 6. Per contra, Ms. Manisha L. Shah, learned Senior Advocate appearing with Mr. Dhawan Jayswal, learned advocate for the respondent has submitted that the State Government has introduced the MYSY scheme vide resolution dated 7.10.2015 providing for financial assistance and scholarship to the students. The MYSY scheme offers a monetary benefit to the students pursuing M.B.B.S. studies to an extent of 50% of the tuition fees or Rs.2 lakhs, whichever is less; however, the same is subject to fulfilment of modalities, including submission of periodical and stipulated income certificate with necessary proof. 6.1 While inviting the attention of this Court to the MYSY scheme, it is submitted that KCG is the nodal agency constituted under the MYSY scheme for management and disbursing the amount. It is submitted that the objective behind the MYSY scheme is to provide an uniform opportunity to the bright and needy students and help them financially so that they can pursue higher education. It is submitted that the objective behind the MYSY scheme is to provide an uniform opportunity to the bright and needy students and help them financially so that they can pursue higher education. Clause 2.3 deals with the extension of the MYSY scheme to the higher education; clause 2.3.1.2 provides for the eligibility of the student; clause 2.3.1.3 provides that the income of the parents of the student up to Rs.4,50,000/- (now Rs.6,00,000/-), would be eligible for the benefit under the MYSY scheme. Clause 2.3.2.1 is with respect to assistance of tuition fees. Assistance is to the tune of 50% of the tuition fees or Rs.2 lakhs, whichever is less. Similarly, assistance is provided for lodging & boarding and for books & materials. It is submitted that if it is found that the recipient has produced a false income certificate or any incorrect details, and has obtained the assistance by fraud, penal proceedings would be initiated and the assistance extended would be recovered with penal interest of 18%. 6.2 It is submitted that renewal is provided every year and the son of the petitioner has been extended the assistance, initially in the year 2015 and thereafter, in the year 2016, the renewal application was processed. Similarly, for the year 2017 and 2018, the application of the son of the petitioner was processed; however, at the time of processing the fourth renewal application, since from the self declaration certificate of the petitioner, it was found that the income mentioned for the Financial Year 2018–2019 (Assessment Year 2019–2020) was Rs.3,50,000/-; certain details were called for in addition to the supporting documents substantiating that the petitioner is not required to file the income tax return. Documents, namely, PAN card of the wife of the petitioner, bank account details of the petitioner for the year 2018 to 2019 were also called for. 6.3 It is submitted that, upon scrutiny, it was found that the annual income as stated in the self-declaration, is Rs.3,50,000/-; whereas, the income certificate provided by the petitioner was indicating the income at Rs.1,95,000/-. It is only after scrutinising the application that the said letter was addressed; however, till date, the petitioner has not provided such documents. 6.3 It is submitted that, upon scrutiny, it was found that the annual income as stated in the self-declaration, is Rs.3,50,000/-; whereas, the income certificate provided by the petitioner was indicating the income at Rs.1,95,000/-. It is only after scrutinising the application that the said letter was addressed; however, till date, the petitioner has not provided such documents. Further, upon scrutiny, it was found that the petitioner is/was a Director of a company till 29.3.2018 and had 34,259 shares of UCAL Fuel Systems Ltd. and had a single unit value of Rs.125.40, which would be approximately Rs.44 lakhs as on 27.11.2020. 6.4 It is next submitted that the grievance against the communication dated 15.2.2020 of the petitioner, therefore, is misplaced, inasmuch as, no decision has been taken. So far, the respondent authorities have only called for certain information which they are well within their right to do so. It is submitted that the documents as indicated in the communication dated 15.2.2020, has been called for and that is all what is sought for and therefore, there is no cause of action available to the petitioner to maintain the present writ petition. It is also submitted that the present petition is filed at a premature stage and the same may not be entertained being bereft of any merits. 6.5 It is also submitted that merely requiring the petitioner to submit the documents, does not for a moment suggest that the son of the petitioner would not be provided the scholarship and the discrepancies which were noticed, deserve to be redressed. However, the petitioner has exhibited an adamant attitude in not providing the details and has indulged into hurling insinuations against the department and against the lawyers appearing for the department. The petition has been filed at a premature stage, therefore, does not deserve to be entertained. 7. Heard the learned party-in-person – petitioner herein, Ms. Manisha L. Shah, learned Senior Advocate appearing with Mr. Dhawan Jayswal, learned advocate appearing for the respondent and perused the documents and materials available on the record. 8. The petition has been filed at a premature stage, therefore, does not deserve to be entertained. 7. Heard the learned party-in-person – petitioner herein, Ms. Manisha L. Shah, learned Senior Advocate appearing with Mr. Dhawan Jayswal, learned advocate appearing for the respondent and perused the documents and materials available on the record. 8. As can be culled out from the petition memo, the replies of the respondents, rejoinders filed in the captioned proceeding and the submissions made by the learned party-in-person, it appears that the grievance of the petitioner is against the communication dated 15.2.2020 issued by the KCG, a nodal agency appointed under the MYSY scheme for disbursing or releasing the assistance to the student concerned. The MYSY scheme has been introduced by the State Government vide resolution dated 7.10.2015, offering financial assistance to the bright and needy students, desirous of pursuing higher education. The MYSY scheme contains various terms and conditions to be fulfilled for availing the assistance. 9. The son of the petitioner has applied for assistance under the MYSY scheme and has been granted the scholarship, followed by the renewals in the year 2016, 2017 and 2018; however, the application was submitted for fourth renewal and the same was processed. During the scrutiny of documents, namely, (i) income certificate dated 26.11.2018, (ii) the self declaration dated 28.11.2019 and (iii) the details of UCAL Fuel Systems Ltd., the authorities concerned addressed the communication dated 15.2.2020, requiring the petitioner to provide the clarification so also certain documents, viz. (i) the PAN card of wife of the petitioner, (ii) bank account details and (iii) supporting documents to substantiate that the amount of Rs.3,50,000/- is not taxable as per the self declaration of the petitioner. It is difficult to fathom as to why the petitioner instead of providing such detail, is resisting such demand. More particularly, when the petitioner and son of the petitioner has declared that they would abide by the Rules, Regulations governing the MYSY scheme. The declaration in the Sahay Renewal Application Form reads thus:- “Declaration: I hereby declare that all the particulars provided by me is true and correct. In the event of suppression or distortion of any information provided by me, I understand that my application for availing benefits of the scheme is liable for cancellation, I accept and understand all rules and regulations of ‘Mukhyamantri Yuva Swavalamban Yojana’ and it is abide to me. In the event of suppression or distortion of any information provided by me, I understand that my application for availing benefits of the scheme is liable for cancellation, I accept and understand all rules and regulations of ‘Mukhyamantri Yuva Swavalamban Yojana’ and it is abide to me. I also give permission for use of my Aadhaar number details for authentication and DBT purpose.” 10. Pertinently, the government has issued a resolution providing for assistance and the petitioner has applied for availing the assistance. Therefore, if the petitioner is desirous of availing the assistance, it is not open to the petitioner not to abide by the terms and conditions contained in the MYSY scheme, fulfillment whereof is a sine qua non for availing the assistance. When the authorities concerned, have required certain details, it is the obligation of the petitioner and his son to fulfill the same and no exception can be carved out for the petitioner not to submit the information sought for by the authorities concerned. Therefore, not to respond to the communication dated 15.2.2020 and filing the present writ petition, is nothing but an attempt on the part of the petitioner to wriggle out of the Rules and conditions contained in the MYSY scheme. Hence, the present petition, in the present form, cannot be entertained at this stage, inasmuch as; no cause of action has arisen to the petitioner. For laying the challenge, there has to be a decision or refusal by the authorities concerned or an inaction. Merely, because certain documents have been called for by the respondent authorities, it will not offer any cause of action to the petitioner to ventilate the grievance invoking violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 11. Besides, it is well settled that to maintain the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the party concerned, has to show any right, legal, fundamental or statutory, in his/her favour vis-à-vis corresponding duty on the part of the respondent authorities to perform the same. However, clearly, the petitioner is seeking assistance under the MYSY scheme which has been introduced by the State Government, which does not confer any right in his favour save and except the consideration. If at all, the petitioner and his son are desirous of availing the assistance, they are under an obligation to abide by the provisions under the MYSY scheme. If at all, the petitioner and his son are desirous of availing the assistance, they are under an obligation to abide by the provisions under the MYSY scheme. Pertinently, the assistance involved, is a public money and while dealing with the public exchequer, it is a bounden duty of the respondent authorities and State Government to see that it reaches to the right person for whom it is meant. Therefore, if any scrutiny is undertaken by the respondent authorities, the petitioner is wrong in harbouring an impression that the authorities concerned are acting on their whims, only with a view to harassing the petitioner and his son. 12. Further, Ms. Manisha L. Shah, learned Senior Advocate is also right in contending that by communication dated 15.2.2020, all what has been asked for is furnishing of certain documents and that no decision has been taken. Therefore also, the grievance so raised is at a premature stage. As discussed herein above, if the petitioner is desirous of availing the assistance, the petitioner should abide by the requirement envisaged under the MYSY scheme. By not doing so, it would be impermissible to the petitioner to approach this Court, simply raising the contention that under Section 10, income of the petitioner is not to be included and it is only if the income exceeds Rs.2,50,000/- that the income tax return is to be filed. The petitioner is also in error in raising the contention that if at all the petitioner has not observed the provisions of the Income Tax Act, the department is there to act and for which, the respondent authorities may not bother. 13. Under the circumstances, the petition cannot be entertained at this stage. However, it will be open to the petitioner to submit all the documents as desired by the respondent authorities within a period of two weeks from the date of judgment and if the documents are submitted, then the respondent authorities are directed to take a decision within a period of another two weeks from the date of receipt of the documents and communicate the same to the petitioner within a period of one week thereafter. 14. In view of the aforementioned discussion, the petition is not entertained. Except allowing an opportunity to petitioner and his son to submit the documents, if they so desire. The petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 15. 14. In view of the aforementioned discussion, the petition is not entertained. Except allowing an opportunity to petitioner and his son to submit the documents, if they so desire. The petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 15. Adverting to the Civil Applications, it is required to be noted that the same also deserve to be rejected. So far as Civil Application No.2 of 2020 is concerned, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: – “3. The Applicant prays to the Honorable Court for the appropriate order even if interim for release of the aforementioned documents vide para[1]. 4. Till date none of the Respondents have furnished their position under Affidavit thus kindly ask for the Affidavits from the each respondents for clarifying their respective roles and culpable responsibility for the larger conspiracy unfolding now as many Government Agencies are acting out of whims and fancies at the behest of some illegal forces/elements in powerful positions in collusion or not, seemingly as events transpiring till now and continuing and are being dealt with elsewhere in proper forums. 5. Any other relief as apparently seem fit for the concerned issue to the Honourable Court with its prudence.” 16. However, the prayers are supported by the averments made in paragraphs 1 and 2, which read thus: – “1. Immediate release of the aforementioned documents which are for some reasons of illegality regarding the demanded bond for SFI institutes and to circumvent that the earlier scholarship which itself is a suspect manipulation if properly audited, now has been rechristened as ‘Sahay’ for the false pretext and as an afterthought the concerned Government Department unduly demanding the BOND and not giving the Documents as a leverage which amounts to extortion to say the least besides blatant abuse of power and authority, albeit grossly illegal with following hegemony, knowingly. 2. 2. The main matter concerned with the disbursal of final renewal and illegally and out of the whims and fancies of all the Respondents in collusion, sans their own published and well established guidelines have acted unilaterally causing immense financial planning and following direct consequential loss and extreme mental and financial strain for the Applicant for which damages are claimed which were apprised of to all the respondents through emails and personally but in vain as not knowingly heeded to.” So far as the Civil Application No.1 of 2021 is concerned, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: – “5. Firstly the immediate release of the Documents without any delay for any further impediment into Righs of the Petitioner’s Son who is hurting of the Respondents either jointly or severally or alternatively compounded by also for the loss of opportunities for not supplying them in the Third Year of MBBS when most relevant and useful. 6. For the justice, kindly order the money under MYSY released with heavy financial Penalty commensurate with the direct consequential losses incurred from all the Respondents for denying the Petitioner his Fundamental Rights for financial planning against all obstacles through conspiratorial conducts on various fronts by people in public and private domain in collusion and are in fact the so called white collar goons and robbers. 7. Declare and Demand illegal for SFIs unconditionally as the new stand taken vide the Circular marked “P1-E” which is also supplied as a typed copy “P1-F” as per the Objections raised where one is the Prayer which is covered here too with below statement under Affidavit.” So far as the Civil Application No.2 of 2021 is concerned, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: – “9. In congruence with prayer also under para[9] in the Main matter Application/Petition, read with impleadment Order by the Honorable Court after 1-12-2020 through 06-01-2021 hearing, there is an illegal withholding of documents which is admitted under Affidavit in Reply by Respondent No.4 filed dated 22-02-2021, I the undersigned with greatest of humility request the Honorable Court to order the Respondent No.4 to immediately, especially in wake of a standing interim Order attached herewith to cooperate further and release the Documents withheld and facilitate the process of Gujarat Medical Council Registration which otherwise was presumed as per actions in accordance with BoG/MCI, First Attempt Certificate to be issued by the Dean Sir, followed by Provisional Degree Certificate by University accompanying previous Documents mentioned vide para[2] above. 10. To grant for intervening the matter being heard for the issue cited under Affidavit in Reply being heard by the very Bench under R/SCA 8\9043 OF 2020 tagged w/ three other matters as no cause of Action lies at the Petitioner’s end. 7. Any relief the Honorable Court seem fit even of Interlocutory nature.” 17. At this statge, it is relevant to mention the orders dated 19.4.2021 and 6.5.2021 passed by this Court, while hearing the petition being Special Civil Application No.6406 of 2020 as well as the Civil Applications. Vide order dated 19.4.2021 this Court, has observed thus:- “The party in person is insistive. This court has no option but to rescue from hearing of the matter” Since it was found that the party-in-person was insistive, the Court has recused itself from hearing the matter. Further, the learned party-in-person was accorded enough leverage which is clear from the order dated 6.5.2021. It has been recorded that the issue of seeking exemption from the bond and availing financial assistance from the MYSY scheme are issues, which are not part of the petition. The order dated 6.5.2021, is required to be reproduced only with a view to showing that the learned party-in-person, has been offered sufficient opportunity by this Court to take out appropriate independent proceedings; however, he chose not do so. “1. The petitioner has challenged a communication dated 15.02.2020, whereby, the Competent Authority called for certain documents with regard to the income so as to satisfy itself on the petitioner's eligibility for seeking benefits of Mukhyamantri Yuva Swavlamban Yojna, by which, the Government provides financial assistance/scholarship to students. 2. “1. The petitioner has challenged a communication dated 15.02.2020, whereby, the Competent Authority called for certain documents with regard to the income so as to satisfy itself on the petitioner's eligibility for seeking benefits of Mukhyamantri Yuva Swavlamban Yojna, by which, the Government provides financial assistance/scholarship to students. 2. In the pending petition, the party-in-person filed a Civil Application seeking for release of documents as well as disbursement of money under the MYSY scheme and further declaring the circular dated 22.10.2021 as unconstitutional. 3. Having heard party-in-person and Ms.Manisha Luvkumar learned Senior Advocate with Mr.Dhawan Jayswal learned advocate for respondent no.4-Gujarat Medical Education Research Society and perusal of the affidavit-in-reply filed, indicates that the issue of release of documents is a controversy and a due conflict between the petitioner and the Government as the petitioner-student did not offer the bond as required under the circulars of the Government for rendering service in the rural area. 4. The issue of seeking exemption from the bond and availing financial assistance from the MYSY scheme are issues which are not part in the petition. 5. Perusal of the petition and the prayers made therein and the averments would indicate that the applicant has appeared through his father party-in-person Shri Rajesh Manibhai Patel. The Court has given enough leverage because he is appearing as party-in-person, and because the only averment that indicate withholding of the documents is by way of separate civil application which is not a prayer in the present petition. In the petition, the petitioner has averred that “there is culpable responsibility for the larger conspiracy unfolding now as many government agencies are acting out of whims and fancies at the behest of some illegal force/elements in powerful forces.” 6. Even in the other Civil Application, the only averment made is that the respondents are creating obstacles to conspiratorial conducts in collusion with white collar goons and robbers. 7. The party-in-person except making these averments, has not made out any ground for satisfying the Court as to how the issues are arising. 8. On record is an order of 19.04.2021 recording insistence of the party-in-person and therefore the recusal of the Court taking up the matter. 9. The Court has nothing left but to unfortunately express anguish for the conduct of the party-in-person as despite having been told repeatedly of the limitations and weaknesses in the pleadings. 10. 8. On record is an order of 19.04.2021 recording insistence of the party-in-person and therefore the recusal of the Court taking up the matter. 9. The Court has nothing left but to unfortunately express anguish for the conduct of the party-in-person as despite having been told repeatedly of the limitations and weaknesses in the pleadings. 10. While the Court is adjourning the matter, learned party-in- person has also attributed motives to the learned Government Pleader by saying that she has mislead the contempt bench whereas perusal of the order would suggest that the contempt bench would only indicate that the Court has not entertained contempt petition in view of the pendency of this petition and the applications. 11. Stand over to 28.06.2021.” 18. The Court in aforesaid order dated 6.5.2021, has in paragraph 9 also recorded that the court has nothing left but to unfortunately express anguish for the conduct of the party-in-person; despite having been told repeatedly of the limitations and weakness in the pleadings. The order dated 6.5.2021 has attained finality, it having been not challenged before higher forum. Though, note for speaking to minutes was filed, the same was rejected vide order dated 10.6.2021. Clearly, the learned party-in-person, has been afforded sufficient opportunity to take corrective measures with respect to the prayers in the civil applications, however, exhibiting an adamant attitude, he chose to argue the Civil Applications. Hence, the Civil Applications are to be decided in the form they are filed. 19. The prayers, inter alia, appear to be for release of the documents, namely, (i) mark sheets of T.Y. M.B.B.S. (final M.B.B.S., Part I & II) ; (ii) M.B.B.S. transcripts; (iii) School Leaving Certificate; and (iv) original marksheet of H.S.C., since the son of the petitioner is preparing for Permanent Doctor’s Registration. Pertinently, the grievance of the petitioner is not relatable to the prayers prayed for in the writ petition being Special Civil Application No.6406 of 2020. Hence, the grievance of the non-release of the aforementioned documents being independent in nature, it cannot be entertained in the form of Civil Applications. 20. If the petitioner has any grievance as regards non-release of the documents, irrespective of the fact that petitioner appears as party-in-person, needs to observe provisions of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993 while filing the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 20. If the petitioner has any grievance as regards non-release of the documents, irrespective of the fact that petitioner appears as party-in-person, needs to observe provisions of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993 while filing the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rule 174 relevant for the present purpose reads thus:- “174. Applications for issue of writ of mandamus prohibition quo warranto & writ of certiorari. - Every application involving the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226, 227, & 228 of the Constitution of India shall be by petition addressed to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court. The grounds on which the relief's are sought shall be clearly stated in the petition which shall be arranged in suitable paragraphs consecutively numbered. The relief's sought should be set out at the end of the petition. The full names, official designation, if any, and the full addresses of all the parties to the petition for service of any process shall be stated in the petition. In every such petition, the petitioner or where there are more than one petitioner, the petitioners, shall state whether he or any of the petitioners have filed any application or any other proceeding in the Supreme Court, High Court or any other Court in respect of the same matter, and how that application or proceeding has been disposed of. The petition shall be signed either by the Petitioner or the Petitioners, as the case may be, or by his or their advocate. In case the petitioner or petitioners, as the case may be, sign it, it shall also be countersigned by his or their advocate.” 21. Rule 174 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993, provides that every application for issue of writ of mandamus prohibition, quo warranto and writ of certiorari under Articles 226, 227 and 228 of the Constitution of India, shall be by petition addressed to the Honourable the Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court. It further provides that the grounds on which the reliefs are sought shall be clearly stated in the petition which shall be arranged in suitable paragraphs consequently numbered. The reliefs sought should be set out at the end of the petition. Non-observance of the Rules, disentitles the petitioner to seek any reliefs as prayed for in the present Civil Application and hence, cannot be entertained. 22. The reliefs sought should be set out at the end of the petition. Non-observance of the Rules, disentitles the petitioner to seek any reliefs as prayed for in the present Civil Application and hence, cannot be entertained. 22. Also, to seek any order, writ or command, the aggrieved party has to satisfy the Court that he/she has legal or fundamental right accrued in his/her favour to the performance of legal duty by the party/authority against whom the directions are sought. 23. Considering the reliefs prayed for in the Civil Applications, the issue of seeking exemption from the bond is distinct cause of action and cannot be considered by way of Civil Application. If the petitioner is desirous of redressal of his grievance, the request by the petitioner has to be in the requisite format as per the Rules, and governing principle of law. Therefore, the Civil Applications are not entertained with a liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate independent proceedings before the appropriate forum if permissible and available in law, of course if he so chose. 24. In view of the above, the Civil Applications are rejected. No order as to costs.