Dismissed¶64

Mahendra Mrityunjay Hugar v. Karnataka Examination Authority

Karnataka HC9 Apr 2026WP/9170/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NEET-PG 2025; Karnataka Examinations Authority (KEA); postgraduate medical counselling rounds (3rd/Mop-up 26.02.2026, 4th/stray, 5th); seat cancellation/surrender penalty Rs.18,00,000; forfeiture of course fee; return of original documents; E-information Bulletin-I Clause-12 Sub-clause (11); KEA notification dated 28.11.2025; Akash Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre; Obstetrics and Gynaecology seat; monthly stipend Rs.60,000; challan Rs.90,14,250; Articles 226 and 227; writ of mandamus; petition dismissed; petitioner's counsel absent; Bengaluru, 09.04.2026.

What did the court decide?

The Court accepted that Prayer-A had become infructuous, as the 5th round of counselling had already been completed and the counselling process had come to an end pursuant to orders passed by this Court in a previous petition. ¶44

Mahendra Mrityunjay Hugar Vs Karnataka… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:19789-DB WP No. 9170 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT PETITION NO. 9170 OF 2026 (EDN-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

MAHENDRA MRITYUNJAY HUGAR, S/O MRITYUNJAY MAHALINGAPPA HUGAR, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT H NO. 1124, TQ GOKAK, MAHANTESH NAGAR, GHATAPRABHA R S, BELAGAVI, KARNATAKA-591 306.

¶11

Digitally signed by KAVYA G Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

CURRENTLY RESIDING AT, B802, 7^TH FLOOR, RAMANNA JYOTHI APARTMENT, GORGUNTAPALYA, BANGALORE-560 022.

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

(BY SRI.AKSHAY RAMACHANDRA HUDDAR, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

KARNATAKA EXAMINATION AUTHORITY, 18^TH CROSS, SAMPIGE ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE-560 012.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:19789-DB WP No. 9170 of 2026

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

AKASH INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES AND RESEARCH CENTRE, PRASANNAHALLI MAIN ROAD, NEAR KEMPEGOWDA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, DEVANAHALLI, BANGALORE-562 110.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI.N.K.RAMESH., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI.BIPIN HEGDE., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (A) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING RESPONDENT NO.1 TO PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO PARTICIPATE IN THE ONGOING COUNSELLING PROCESS FOR POSTGRADUATE MEDICAL ADMISSIONS I.E., THE 5^TH ROUND OF COUNSELLING WHICH IS SCHEDULED TO HELD IN UPCOMING WEEK I.E., THIRD WEEK OR 4^TH WEEK OF MARCH 2026 AND TO CONSIDER THE PETITIONER FOR ALLOTMENT OF A SEAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH HIS MERIT. (B) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING RESPONDENT NO.1 TO RETURN OF ALL THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS RETAINED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 BY WAIVING OFF THE PENALTY LEVIED, ONLY IN THE CASE WHERE THE ADMISSION PROCEDURE IS COMPLETED AND NO SUBSEQUENT COUNSELLING ROUNDS ARE HELD (C) PASS SUCH OTHER INTERIM ORDER OR DIRECTION.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:19789-DB WP No. 9170 of 2026

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI)

¶30

Since Sri. N.K. Ramesh, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri. Bipin Hegde, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 respectively, who have accepted notice and have received and acknowledged receipt of a copy of the petition with all its annexures, the steps are not required to be taken for issuance of notice by the learned counsel for the petitioner even this stage of the proceedings.

¶31

It is noted that when the matter was called-out initially, the learned counsel for the petitioner was present and after the aforesaid order was passed, he requested the Court to pass-over the matter so that his Senior could appear. The matter was called out in the second round before the midday recess. But, no one appeared for the petition. The matter was then posted after the recess and even now no one appears for

¶32

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:19789-DB WP No. 9170 of 2026

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

the petitioner. Therefore, the matter is being taken up for consideration.

¶35

This petition has been filed seeking the following

¶36

reliefs:-

¶37

A. Issue a writ of Mandamus directing Respondent No.1 to permit the petitioner to participate in the ongoing counselling process for postgraduate medical admissions i.e., the 5^th round of counselling which is scheduled to held in upcoming week i.e., third week or 5^th week of March, 2026 and to consider the petitioner for allotment of a seat in accordance with his merit.

¶38

B. Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing Respondent No.1 to return of all the original documents retained by Respondent No.1 by waiving off the penalty levied, only in the case where the admission procedure is completed and no subsequent counselling rounds are held.

¶39

C. Pass such other interim order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice and equity.

¶40

It is informed by Sri. N.K. Ramesh, the learned

¶41

counsel appearing for the KEA-Respondent No.1 that, since the

¶42

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:19789-DB WP No. 9170 of 2026

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

5^th round of counselling has already been completed and the counselling process has come to an end pursuant to orders passed by this Court in a previous petition, the Prayer-A has become infructuous.

¶45

As far as prayer-B is concerned, it appears from perusal of the petition that, the petitioner was qualified for the NEET-PG for the year 2025 and applied for counselling to the KEA, as per the brochure published by the KEA. It is stated that the petitioner secured an all India rank of 211653 and became eligible to participate in the counselling process of Postgratudate Medical courses. In the 3^rd round of counselling on 26.02.2026, the petitioner was allotted a Postgraduate medical seat in the discipline of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at the Respondent No.2- College, which is a private medical institution. It is stated that, to ascertain the fee structure applicable for the said course, the petitioner approached the institution and also for completing the admission formalities. It is stated that as per the guidelines of the KEA, the first year fee is to be paid to the Respondent No. 1 in the form of Demand Draft. However, the Respondent No.2- Institution insisted for

¶46

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:19789-DB WP No. 9170 of 2026

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

payment of tuition fee over and above the payment due to Respondent No.1 for subsequent academic years, at the time of admission itself, which amounted to a sum of Rs.18,00,000/by cash. The institution further informed the petitioner that they are not willing to pay the monthly stipend of Rs.60,000/during the postgraduate training period. A copy of the fee receipt payable to the KEA is stated to be enclosed as Annexure-E. It is stated that the institution cannot insist an advance payment of future academic year which has not commenced. Further, the refusal by respondent no. 2 to pay the stipend is contrary to the established regulatory norms governing medical education and the petitioner personally approached the office of the KEA on 02.03.2026 to bring to their notice the irregularities and informed the authority about the exorbitant fee demand and the refusal to pay stipend by the institution. However, it is alleged that the officials of the KEA refused to take the request letter of the petitioner. He then moved for withdrawal from the allotted seat with a request for return of his original documents submitted during the counselling process. It is submitted that subsequent to the 4^th round of counselling, there are seats available with the

¶49

¶50

NC: 2026:KHC:19789-DB WP No. 9170 of 2026

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

Respondent No.1 and if the petitioner is permitted to the 5^th round of counselling, no inconvenience would be caused either to the students or to the KEA. Thus this petition is filed.

¶53

Learned counsel for the KEA states that Annexure-E

¶54

is simply a challan that was downloaded by the petitioner, which reflected that a sum of Rs.90,14,250/- was liable to be paid by the petitioner for purpose of getting admission to the Respondent No.2-Institution. It is stated that after downloading this Challan Form, no amount whatsoever has been paid by the petitioner. It is further stated that as per Sub-clause (11) of Clause-12 of the E-information Bulletin-I at Page-85 of the writ petition issued by the KEA for applying online verification of original documents and conduct of centralised counselling for admission to Postgraduate Medical Dental Courses for the year 2025 clearly specifies that any cancellation or surrender of seats after the Mop-up round shall be made in person only to the Director, Directorate of Medical Education, Karnataka, with a penalty of Rs.18,00,000/- in case of Medical Clinical Degree or Diploma Courses and further they will be ineligible for further rounds of admission including names list admission. It is also

¶55

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:19789-DB WP No. 9170 of 2026

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

stated that a notification dated 28.11.2025 was issued by the KEA in respect of PG NEET-2025 admission, in which it is provided that a penalty of Rs.18,00,000/- plus forfeiture of course fee paid in respect of a clinical seat would be payable after the candidate cancels the seat after 3^rd round (Mop-up) seat allotment before commencement of 4^th round (stray round). Further, the candidate would be ineligible to participate in further rounds of counselling and would also not be eligible to participate in PG counselling for further 3 years. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the original documents shall be returned by the KEA to the petitioner on his paying the dues of penalty. It is nowhere reflected in the petition that the fee has actually been paid after downloading the challan from the website of the KEA, which challan is enclosed as AnnexureE to this petition.

¶58

It is stated that the 5^th round of counselling has already come to an end and the entire process of counselling stands concluded for PG NEET-2025.

¶59

Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2 states that the Respondent No.2-Institution has suffered a loss

¶60

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:19789-DB WP No. 9170 of 2026

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

due to that seat becoming vacant with no payment of fee made by the candidate.

¶63

As far as the allegation made by the Respondent No.2-Institution is concerned, it is noted that apart from the so-called representations being filed before the KEA, no cogent evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that any claim was made by the Respondent No.2- Institution, from the petitioner.

¶64

Therefore, under the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any good ground to entertain this petition. The petition is therefore dismissed.

¶65

Sd/(JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE

¶66

Sd/(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE

¶67

KGR List No.: 2 Sl No.: 12

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Prior proceeding
Petitioner qualified NEET-PG for 2025 and applied to KEA for postgraduate medical counselling as per the KEA brochure.¶45
Prior proceeding
Petitioner secured All India Rank 211653 and became eligible to participate in the postgraduate medical counselling process.¶45
Prior proceeding
KEA notification dated 28.11.2025 for PG NEET-2025 prescribed a penalty of Rs.18,00,000 plus forfeiture of course fee for cancelling a clinical seat after 3rd round (Mop-up) allotment before the 4th (stray) round, with ineligibility for further rounds and a 3-year bar on PG counselling.¶57
Prior proceeding
In the 3rd round of counselling held on 26.02.2026, petitioner was allotted a Postgraduate seat in Obstetrics and Gynaecology at Respondent No.2-College, a private medical institution.¶45
Prior proceeding
As per petitioner's account of KEA guidelines, first-year fee was payable to KEA by Demand Draft; petitioner approached Respondent No.2 to ascertain the fee structure and complete admission formalities.¶45
Prior proceeding
Petitioner alleged Respondent No.2-Institution insisted on cash payment of Rs.18,00,000 towards tuition for subsequent academic years at the time of admission itself.¶48
Prior proceeding
Petitioner alleged Respondent No.2-Institution informed him it would not pay the monthly stipend of Rs.60,000 during the postgraduate training period.¶48
Prior proceeding
On 02.03.2026 petitioner personally approached the KEA office to report the alleged fee irregularity and stipend refusal; he alleges KEA officials refused to accept his request letter.¶48
Prior proceeding
Petitioner moved for withdrawal from the allotted seat with a request for return of his original documents submitted during the counselling process.¶48
Prior proceeding
Counsel for KEA stated that Annexure-E is merely a challan downloaded by the petitioner showing Rs.90,14,250/- as payable for admission to Respondent No.2-Institution, and that no amount was actually paid.¶53

Mahendra Mrityunjay Hugar v. Karnataka Examination Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Mrityunjay Hugar v. Karnataka Examination Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. T K Sumana Vs Shri. B R Chandrashekar

Dr Shalini Govind Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Madhu B .S Vs Smt. Deepika S

Kumaran Kannan Vs Mahalakshmi K

Smt Shobha H Vs Sri K Harish

Mahika. M. P. Vs the State of Karnataka