The judgment emphasizes the need for equitable consideration of students' challenges in making online payments and the importance of addressing technical issues in the admission process.

JUDGMENT

Ravindra V. Ghuge, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

2. The petitioner has put forth prayer clauses (B) and (C), as under :-

"B) The respondent may kindly be directed to decide the claim of petitioner for registration to CSAB and admission in NIT's by issuing writ of mandamus, order in the like nature by making rule made absolute.

C) Till pending hearing and final disposal of this writ petition, petitioner may kindly be allotted seat in NIT Nagpur."

3. On 22/12/2022, after hearing all the parties, we have passed the following order :-

"1. The petitioner, after clearing the HSC examination, further cleared the JEE (Main) examination with Application No. 220310705262. He acquired 91.1310484 percentile. His admission to IIT's/NIT's was registered for the Joint Seat Allocation Authority (JOSAA) counseling. The petitioner's admission is not processed and he is not considered for the solitary reason that respondent no.2 purportedly did not receive the requisite fees of Rs.38,000/-.

2. The petitioner has placed before us the print out that he has obtained from the website of the IndusInd Bank pertaining to the statement of his bank account No.201012992033. An entry on 28.10.2022 indicates a money transfer transaction, by which Rs.38000/- were transferred to respondent no.2 on it's account at Mumbai. The amount of Rs.38000/- was, therefore, debited to the account of the petitioner. A further entry dated 02.11.2022 indicates a refund from Central Seat Allocation Board (CSAB)/respondent no.2, vide which the amount of Rs.38000/- have been credited to the account of the petitioner. Prima facie, considering these transactions, it can be gathered that the petitioner has deposited Rs.38000/-with respondent No.2, within time.

3. The learned Advocate for respondent Nos.1 & 2 places a scanned copy of the affidavit-in-reply prepared by the Chairperson of National Institute of Technology, Rourkela, Odisha, dated 21.12.2022. The same is taken on record, with liberty to the respondents to file the original affidavit-in-reply in the Registry. The learned Advocate for the respondents submits that the said amount of Rs.38000/-never reached the account of respondent no.2.

4. In view of the above, leave to add the National Institute of Technology, Rourkela, Odisha, through its authorised signatory as respondent no.3. Addition be carried out forthwith.

5. Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 4. 01.2023. This matter would be listed in the 'urgent admission students' category. The learned Advocate Shri. Bhosale waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.

6. Considering the limited controversy, we expect the petitioner to collect a certified copy of the statement of accounts from the concerned bank and produce the same before the Court on the next date, with a short affidavit.

7. In the event, any seats to respondent No.3 at NIT, Nagpur are vacant even today, we would expect respondent Nos.2 & 3 to keep one seat vacant, in the light of the peculiar facts of this case, in the backdrop of our prima facie conclusion that a transaction of crediting Rs.38000/-in the account of respondent no.2 is visible from the bank's record and return of the said amount is also visible."

4. On 04/01/2023, we had passed an order in continuation with our earlier order, as under :-

"1. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 22.12.2022, the petitioner has produced a photostat copy of his bank statement for the period 27.10.2022 till 03.12.2022 (3 pages). The same is taken on record and marked as 'X-1' for identification.

2. The learned advocate representing the respondents places on record a communication by the Branch Manager of ICICI Bank Ltd. Udit Nagar Branch, dated 30.12.2022, making a statement that an amount of Rs.38,000/- was not received by the bank from the petitioner, to be credited in the account of the respondent. The said communication is marked as 'X'-2' for identification.

3. For clarity, We