many such candidates were there and, whether, even if such candidates were to re-apply, their turn would come, or not. The cause of action, insofar as the petitioners were concerned would, indeed, have arisen only when, after the admission process was over, they found that they had not managed to secure admission. When, at that stage, they came to know that “no show” candidates, of the first three Admission Lists, had occupied the entire fourth Admission List, as well as 8 seats in the fifth Admission List, the petitioners, in my view, certainly had a right to agitate their claim before this Court. They cannot, in such circumstances, be non-suited, either on the ground of delay and laches, or even for the reason that classes have already commenced and continued for two months. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also correctly contended, in this regard, that, though classes commenced in the first week of August 2018, the admission process continued till 31st August, 2018 (admittedly the cut-off date) and that, therefore, there could be no question of the petitioners approaching the Court before 31st August, 2018, when the admission process came to a close, and they found themselves left in the lurch. They have approached this Court within a reasonable period of the said date, i.e. within less than a month and cannot, therefore, be thrown out, without addressing their grievance on merits. Even otherwise, applying the principle of lis pendens, the fact that classes may have commenced, and continued for two months, cannot afford a ground to deny relief to the petitioners.
