ORDER : 1. The petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer: “a) Issue a writ mandamus or any other writ or orders directing Respondent No.2 to admit the Petitioner No.1 for the NEET examination which is scheduled to be held on 04-05-2025 (Annexure-C) by allotting Chikkamagaluru city as examination centre by receiving the requisite fees; b) Pass such other or further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case is concerned in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. The petitioner no.1, a young student with a brilliant academic record having scored 592 marks out of 600 in the Board Examination, is seeking permission of this Court to appear in the ensuing NEET examination to be held on 04.05.2025. The facts reveal that the petitioner no.2 – Shri.BGS Science And Commerce PU College, from where the petitioner no.1 had studied his PUC had undertaken the job of uploading the applications for NEET of its students on payment of fee, by the students, to the said college. An averment has been made by the petitioner No.1 that he had paid an amount of Rs.1,600/- (Rupees One Thousand Six Hundred) to the college to enable the college upload the online application Form and pay the fees for ensuing examination.” 3. According to Sri.P.P.Hegde learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, it was only on 26.04.2025, it transpired that out of 38 students who submitted applications for NEET, only with regard to petitioner no.1, the examination center has not been notified. On enquiries by the petitioner No.2, it transpired that the petitioner No.1 had not paid fee for the examination to enable him to sit in the examination. 4. The submission of Sri.Hegde, is that the petitioner No.1 having tendered the amount to the college, he is not at fault for not paying the fees for the examination. He states that with a brilliant academic record, if the petitioner is not permitted to appear in the examination, he shall loose precious, one year. He also placed before us the account statement of State Bank of India maintained by petitioner No.2 to show that an amount of Rs.1,600/- was paid by the petitioner towards the examination fees to the college for further payment to the National Testing Agency i.e., Respondent No.2 herein. 5. He also placed before us the account statement of State Bank of India maintained by petitioner No.2 to show that an amount of Rs.1,600/- was paid by the petitioner towards the examination fees to the college for further payment to the National Testing Agency i.e., Respondent No.2 herein. 5. Sri.Hegde, states that this Court has enough powers in exercise of jurisdiction under Article–226 of Constitution of India to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner No.1 to sit in the examination. He also relies upon two judgments of this Court and also the Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court had in exercise of their powers, granted the benefits to the candidates whose candidature was rejected for different reasons. 6. On the other hand, Mr.H.Shanthi Bhushan, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, would submit that instructions issued to the candidates for submitting the online forms are very clear, in as much as the application of a candidate will be considered complete only after successful payment of application fee. In the present case, the application fees having not been paid by the petitioner no.2, which made the application form incomplete though the registration process in that regard having been completed, the petitioner cannot be allowed to sit in the examination. 7. He filed a note of submissions to contend that as the examination is scheduled on 04.05.2025 i.e., day after tomorrow and as per his instructions the question papers and answer sheets have been dispatched to the respective centers, throughout the country, it is too late in the day for this Court to direct the opening of the portal to enable the petitioner No.1 herein to deposit the examination fees. He also highlights the fact that the examination portal cannot be confined to the petitioner No.1 alone. It can be utilized / operated by others also, vitiating the process. It is for this reason that when the examination is on 04.05.2025 i.e., day after tomorrow effectively one day is left, the direction sought cannot be given. 8. He also highlights the fact that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vanshika Yadav Vs. Union of India and Others, W.P. (Civil) No. 335 of 2024 decided on 23.07.2024, supra has commented on the malpractices which can happen if a direction is given for activating the portal for the petitioner/litigant to deposit the examination fees. 8. He also highlights the fact that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vanshika Yadav Vs. Union of India and Others, W.P. (Civil) No. 335 of 2024 decided on 23.07.2024, supra has commented on the malpractices which can happen if a direction is given for activating the portal for the petitioner/litigant to deposit the examination fees. He qualifies his submission by stating that the portal cannot be opened singularly for the petitioner. It would be general opening of the portal which would be wrongly used by other candidates whose applications have been rejected only on the ground of non-payment of fees. In fact, he highlights the fact that the application forms of 4500 (approximately) candidates have been rejected only on the ground of non-payment of fees. That apart, he also states that as per the instructions, the question as well as the answer sheets having been dispatched by the Respondent No.2 - NTA to the respective Examination Centers, it cannot be possible to include the name of the petitioner No.1 to enable him to write the examination. Mr. Bhushan, submits that the following issues might arise if any prayer as has been sought by the petitioners in this petition is granted: “NEET (UG) 2025 is to be conducted in thousands of Centers and hundreds of Cities across India and the conducting an examination for more than 20 lacs candidate is a mammoth task. Allowing even one additional candidate after the registration window has closed would open a "Pandora's box" and create a series of unforeseen complications. Once exceptions are made, it sets a precedent for future requests and challenges the examination system, which is built on strict timelines and processes. Allowing even one additional candidate would create a sense of dissatisfaction among other similarly placed candidates and give rise to complaints about inconsistent treatment. The registration window is designed with a fixed, end date to ensure that all examination processes are smooth, including but not limited to Question Paper printing, allocation of City and Centre, issuance of Admit Card, etc. Once the registration process is extended or modified. It disrupts the workflow. The registration window is designed with a fixed, end date to ensure that all examination processes are smooth, including but not limited to Question Paper printing, allocation of City and Centre, issuance of Admit Card, etc. Once the registration process is extended or modified. It disrupts the workflow. Finalizing the Candidate List and making appropriate arrangements for all candidates as per the specifications of their Online Application Form (such as City of Exam, Medium of Exam, PwD facilities, etc.) Re-opening the registration window and increase in the candidate count would create logistical issues in terms of capacity, availability, coordination with center authorities, increase in the Examination Functionaries, etc. If the number of candidates increases, the preparation of the question paper might need to be adjusted in terms of scale or distribution, as well as to accommodate diverse regions or medium of QP preferences. The issuance of City Intimations and Admit Cards may also be delayed due to reprocessing of new registrations.” 9. He also relies upon the following judgments of this Court to contend that this Court had not entertained the petition, wherein the application was not signed and also rejected for not paying the examination fee. He also highlights the fact that the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Namrata Sanjay Sarkate Vs. Union of India and Another, Writ Petition No. 4212/2025 decided on 27.03.2025 . wherein with regard to the same prayer by the petitioner in that case was not accepted by the court. 10. He do concede to the fact that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in one of the case which arose from this Court on which reliance is placed by Mr.Hegde, by directing that its order shall not be treated as a precedent has not interfered with the impugned order passed by this Court on 19.03.2025 wherein it had directed respondent No.1 to take original signatures of the petitioner’s daughter on the application already uploaded along with prescribed fees and permitted her to appear for the NEET Examination’2025. According to him, that would not help the case of the petitioners herein. 11. At this stage, Mr.Hegde submitted that this COURT may direct the respondents to allow the petitioner No.1 take the examination, which can be subject to the final outcome of this writ petition. According to him, that would not help the case of the petitioners herein. 11. At this stage, Mr.Hegde submitted that this COURT may direct the respondents to allow the petitioner No.1 take the examination, which can be subject to the final outcome of this writ petition. He also submits that the petitioner No.1 is ready and willing to take examination from any center in the state of Karnataka and not confining himself to the examination center at Chikkamagalur from where the petitioner had applied for the examination. 12. Mr.Bhushan had taken instruction on the submission made by Mr.Hegde. As per his instructions from the officers of respondent No.1, the answer sheets have been dispatched to all the Examination Centers throughout in the country with one day remaining, it is too late in the day for accommodating the petitioner No.1 for writing the NEET examination even from any centre in the State. 13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records, there cannot be any doubt to the fact that the young student has approached this Court with a prayer that for an inadvertent mistake committed by the Petitioner No.2 for not paying the fees, he is denied the opportunity of writing the NEET examination which shall have the effect of the petitioner No.1 loosing a precious one year to seek admission to the MBBS course. The scholarship of petitioner No.1 as highlighted by the Mr.Hegde cannot be disputed. The very fact that the petitioner no.1 has scored 592 marks out of 600 speaks lot about his brilliance, but this Court is concerned with a limited prayer sought for direction to allow him to write the NEET examination. The case of the petitioner no.1 as submitted by Mr.Hegde is that, it is on 28.04.2025 that the petitioner had come to know that his application Form has been rejected, as he could not pay the examination fees and he has immediately approached this Court. The averments made in the petition reveal that he has given the examination fees to petitioner no.2 as the petitioner no.2 had taken upon itself to upload the application forms/documents and taking further steps to enable the candidate/student appear in the examination. 14. We cannot doubt the bonafides of petitioner no.1 approaching this Court i.e., on 02.05.2025. The averments made in the petition reveal that he has given the examination fees to petitioner no.2 as the petitioner no.2 had taken upon itself to upload the application forms/documents and taking further steps to enable the candidate/student appear in the examination. 14. We cannot doubt the bonafides of petitioner no.1 approaching this Court i.e., on 02.05.2025. But we have to see whether the prayer urged by Sri.Hegde for opening of the portal to enable the petitioner no.1 deposit the fees so as to enable him to appear in the NEET examination can be granted. 15. Mr.Bhushan, has relied upon the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of VANSHIKA YADAV VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS supra, to contend where such a procedure has lead to malpractices and for that reason, the portal cannot be opened for one single candidate, is appealing. 16. That apart, in so far as the submission of Mr. Hegde that petitioner no.1 be allowed to sit in the examination in any centre in the State is concerned, Mr. Bhushan has sought instructions from the Officer of respondent No.1. The instructions being, the question papers and answer sheets having been dispatched to the respective Examination Centers for the examination to be held on 04.05.2025, such a plea is unmerited. We with heavy heart, have to say that we are unable to provide any relief to a young student with excellent academic credentials who has approached this Court, with this petition for a limited prayer to enable him to appear in the examination, in the peculiar facts of this case. 17. We accordingly, close the writ petition.