THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT PETITION No.13430 of 2025 ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul)

Sri Karan Talwar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for respondent Nos.1 and 5.

2. Heard on admission.

3. The petitioner has prayed for the following relief:

“For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ (i) declaring the refusal of the Respondent No.1 in not allowing the Petitioner to participate in the NEET (UG) – 2025 exam as unjust and incorrect (ii) directing the Respondent No.1 to allow the Petitioner/Respondent No.2 to provide the required documents offline and to make the Application fee by way of alternative modes by way of NEFT/Demand Draft, ensuring the participation of the Petitioner in the NEET (UG) – 2025; in the interest of justice and equity and pass such other order or orders as the Hon’ble High Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the purpose of filling up the application form for National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) (Under Graduate), the petitioner was solely dependent on respondent No.2, who assured the petitioner to fill up the form in totality. The petitioner also paid the requisite amount to respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 is the college where the petitioner is presently studying. However, the petitioner could gather later on that the form for NEET examination was not filled up in complete by respondent No.2 and the same is evident from Annexure P.11, wherein it is mentioned that “Examination Fee NOT paid/incomplete Form”. It is submitted that the reasons for submission of incomplete form is solely attributable to respondent No.2 and it was beyond the control of the petitioner. In this peculiar circumstance, appropriate order may be passed directing the respondents to accept the petitioner’s form and late fees. In order to bolster his submission that the mistake happened because of the reason which was beyond the control of the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a legal maxim i.e., lex non cogit ad impossibilia. By placing reliance on the decision of the High Court of Madras in P.Swetha v. Central Board of Secondary Education1, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although in the said case, the question

1 2017 SCC OnLine Mad 1400

was regarding late fees and delay occurred because of poor internet connectivity, a lenient view was taken and in the interest of justice, appropriate directions can be issued even now for accepting the form of the petitioner and taking the fees from him.

5. Learned Deputy Solicitor General of India opposed the prayer on the basis of written instructions and submits that the last date for payment of fees was over. It was the responsibility of the petitioner to fill up the form with accuracy. He cannot shift the burden on respondent No.2. By issuing public notice dated 07.02.2025, the National Testing Agency made it clear about the last date and the formalities to be fulfilled. The petitioner, after having failed to fill up the form in totality and fulfill the requisite formalities, cannot claim the benefits. In support of his submissions, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India placed reliance on the decision of the High Court of Karnataka in Dinesh Nadurmath v. Union of India (W.P.No.7606 of 2025, dated 19.03.2025) and the decision of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad in Namrata Sanjay Sarkate v.

Union of India (W.P.No.4212 of 2025, dated 27.03.2025).

6. In rejoinder submission, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Om Gurusai Construction Compa