IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

(Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction)

APPELLATE SIDE

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Krishna Rao

W.P.A. No. 28769 of 2024

Dr. Sreeparna Ghosh

Vs.

State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Arkadyuti Pahari

Ms. Gargi Maity

Mr. Alik Mandi

....For the petitioner.

Ms. Munmun Ganguly

Mr. Biman Haldar

….For the State.

Mr. D.N. Maiti

Mr. A. Santra

…. For the respondent no. 4.

Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Uday Sankar Chattopadhyay

Ms. Trisha Rakshit

2

Ms. Rajashree Tah

Ms. Aishwarya Datta

Ms. Bidisha Chakraborty

Ms. Sreya Banerjee

Ms. Ankita Saha

….For the respondent no. 5.

Mr. Saibalendu Bhowmik

Mr. Rajsekhar Basu

Mr. Subrata Bhattacharjee

….For the respondent no.3.

Mr. Abhrajit Mitra, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Yash Singhi

Mr. Sourav Bhagat

Mr. Jishnujit Roy

Ms. Deveshi Bose

….For W.B.M.C.

Hearing Concluded On : 11.06.2026

Judgment On : 23.06.2026

Uploaded On : 23.06.2026

Krishna Rao, J.:

1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying for a direction

upon the respondent no. 5 to return all original documents and Rs.

9,50,000/- to the petitioner as she is not willing to continue with her

course in the respondent no. 5 college.

3

2. The petitioner after completion of her BDS Course from Kalinga Institute

of Dental Sciences had appeared for the NEET MDS to pursue her higher

studies and her rank was 8478. In the third round of counseling, she got

admission in the Haldia Institute of Dental Sciences and Research

(HIDSAR) to pursue her MDS course in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery.

The petitioner was informed by the respondents that the Course fee is Rs.

27,00,000/- for three years and she has to pay Rs. 9,00,000/- as tuition

fees, Rs. 15,000/- as admission fees and Rs. 25,000/- on account of

student activities.

3. The petitioner has paid Rs. 9,50,000/- in total and also submitted her

following original documents as part of admission formalities and

requirements:

“1) NEET MDS 2024 Admit Card (Original),

2) NEET MDS Rank Card 2024 (Computer Copy),

3) Class X Admit Card (Original),

4) Domicile Certificate signed by the appropriate

authority (Original),

5) BDS Degree Certificate (Original),

6) Professional BDS Marksheet (Original),

7) Permanent Registration Certificate from West

Bengal Dental Council (Original),

8) Internship Completion Certificate (Original).”

4. The petitioner has attended the college for 6 days and found that the

concern college is not having proper educational facilities and guidance.

4

The petitioner realized that the college where the petitioner got admitted,

she will not meet her academic excellence and will not be in a position to

pursue her study, had applied for withdrawal of her admission from the

college and request is made for return of fees deposited by the petitioner

along with the original testimonials.

5. Mr. Arkadyuti Pahari, Learned Advocate representing the petitioner

submits that instead of returning fees and original testimonials, the

college authorities have directed the petitioner to pay the remaining fees of

Rs. 18,00,000/- and after depositing the remaining course fees of three

years only the original testimonials will be returned to the petitioner.

6. Mr. Pahari submits that in the absence of the original certificates

specifically the Bachelor Degree and Certificates, the petitioner is unable

to practice as a doctor. He further submits that without the original

certificates, the petitioner is unable to proceed further in her academic

career.

7. Mr. Pahari submits that the college is affiliated with West Bengal

University of Health Sciences, which is approved by the University Grants

Commission (UGC), thus the rules and regulations of the UGC are

applicable to the respondent college. He has relied upon the UGC Circular

dated 12

th

June, 2024 and submits that as per the said circular, the

petitioner is entitled to get refund of 100% course fees deposited by the

petitioner.

5

8. Mr. Pahari has relied upon the judgment in the case of Praneeth K. and

Others Vs. University Grants Commission (UGC) and Others reported

in (2021) 14 SCC 241 and submits that the University should adopt the

guidelines issued by the UGC and other statutory bodies from time to

time.

9. Mr. Pahari further relied upon the unreported judgment passed by the

Madras High Court in the case of M. Sumer Vs. The Chairman, PMR

Institute of Technology, Adayalampattu, Chennai and Others in

W.P.A. No. 19908 of 2009 dated 26

th

November, 2009 and submits that

the Madras High Court while considering the case of Islamic Academy of

Education Vs. The State of Karnataka reported in (2003) 6 SCC 697

held that the Hon’ble Supreme Court never held that to withhold the

Transfer Certificate only on the ground that full fees for 3

rd

and 4

th

year

were not paid.

10. Mr. Pahari has relied upon the judgment in the case of Shireen M.T. and

Others Vs. The State of Kerala and Others reported in 2017 SCC

OnLine Ker 2660 and submits that even an agreement is executed by the

petitioner in favour of the College authorizing them to withhold their

certificates is not void for want of consideration and the same is void as

opposed to public policy in terms of Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act,

1872.

6

11. Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya, Learned Senior Advocate representing

the respondent no.5 submits that the petitioner appeared in the National

Eligibility cum Entrance Test for MDS courses. The petitioner secured

8478 rank in the said examination. The petitioner was the 16

th

in the list

of admission of 23 candidates where the NEET rank of the highest rank

holder was 1184 in the year 2024-2025 session. The date of admission of

the petitioner is 29

th

August, 2024, under the Management Quota.

12. Mr. Bhattacharyya submits that on 22

nd

July, 2024, urgent notice

regarding surrender of seat for West Bengal NEET MDS 2024 counseling

was issued wherein it is mentioned that the seat surrender facility for

Round-1 was available from 11 A.M. to 2 P.M. on 24

th

, 25

th

and 26

th

July,

2024, and seat surrender for Round-2 was available from 11 A.M. to 2

P.M. on 10

th

, 12

th

and 13

th

August, 2024. Seat surrender of the admitted

candidates during the process of Round-1 was allowed without any

penalty and seat surrender of admitted candidates during the process of

Round-2 was allowed with forfeiture of admission fees. Seat surrender

from Round-3 was not allowed any further till counseling process was

over. The seat surrender with payment of bond penalty was possible only

after the counseling of all rounds was over for the session 2024-2025.

13. Mr. Bhattacharyya submits that on 29

th

August, 2024, the petitioner filled

up admission form and deposited Rs. 9,25,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- for

student activities. On the same day, the petitioner has submitted her

7

discontinuity bond on a stamp paper of Rs. 50/- in which the petitioner

undertook that she admitted herself in the Post Graduate Course under

the Management Quota and also undertook to pay the remaining amount

of the total amount of the tuition fees of the entire MDS three years course

if she resigned or discontinued the course before completion of course. On

2

nd

September, 2024, the petitioner informed the college that the

petitioner will join College from 2

nd

September, 2024.

14. On 10

th

September, 2024, the petitioner sent an e-mail intimating that she

wanted to discontinue the MDS course and requested to return all her

original documents along with the amount deposited by the petitioner. He

submits that upon receipt of the request of the petitioner, the same was

forwarded to the concern authorities and after considering the request and

the undertaking submitted by the petitioner, the respondents sent a reply

to the petitioner directing the petitioner to deposit the balance amount of

Rs. 18,00,000/- for getting back her original documents along with her

reliving letter.

15. Mr. Bhattacharyya submits that the Guidelines, if any, issued by

University Grants Commission, is not applicable to any medical college or

any dental college. He submits that the colleges are governed by the DCI

and the WBMCC. He submits that discontinuity bond has been introduced

all over India in all private medical and dental colleges. He has relied upon

the judgment in the case of Islamic Academy of Education and

8

Another Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2003) 6 SCC 697 and

submits that some of the educational institutions are collecting in advance

the fees for the entire course because the institution was not sure whether

the student would leave the institution in midstream. He submits that if

the student leaves the institution in midstream, then for the remaining

years the seat would lie vacant and the institution would suffer.

16. There are two issues in the present case:

(i) Whether the letter issued by the University

Grants Commission dated 12

th

June, 2024, is

applicable to the college wherein the petitioner

got admission and;

(ii) Whether the respondent college can retain the

original certificates of the petitioner on the

pretext of payment of the balance amount of

Rs. 18,00,000/- as per the bond executed by

the petitioner.

17. The petitioner has relied upon the Fee Refund Policy 2024-2025 issued by

the University Grants Commission dated 12

th

June, 2024, which reads as

follows:

“Subject: Fee Refund Policy 2024-25

The University Grants Commission receives many

representations/complaints from students/parents on the non-

refund of fees by the Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) on

cancellation/withdrawal of admissions.

2. Students should be allowed a full refund of fees within a

specified period to enable them to opt for a course of their

choice.

9

3. The Commission has considered the matter in its 580th

meeting held on 15 May 2024, and after considering the

relevant factors decided, the following fee refund policy for the

academic session 2024-25:

a. Notwithstanding anything contained in any guidelines/

prospectus/ notification/ schedule, a full refund of fees

shall be made by the HEIs on account of all cancellations

of admissions/migrations of students up to 30 September

2024 and with a deduction of not more than Rs. 1,000, as

a processing fee, up to 31 October 2024.

b. It shall apply to all higher education institutions, whether

established or incorporated by or under a Central Act or a

State Act, and every institution recognized by the

University Grants Commission under clause (f) of Section

2 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 and to

all institutions deemed to be a University declared as

such under Section 3 therein and to all higher education

institutions affiliated to a University.

c. These guidelines would also be applicable to

organizations, consortiums, committees, associations, etc.,

constituted for the purpose of conducting counseling or

processing admissions and collecting fees on behalf of

participating HEIs, and the HEI concerned will be

responsible for refund fees.

d. For any admission schedule extending/commencing

beyond/after 31 October 2024, the provisions contained

in the UGC Notification issued in October 2018 on Refund

of Fees and Non-Retention of Original Certificates shall

apply (reproduced below for ready for reference):

Category Percentage of

Refund of

fees*

Point of time

when notice of

withdrawal of

admission is

received in the

HEI

(1) 100% 15 days or more

before the

formally notified

last date of

10

admission

(2) 90% Less than 15

days before the

formally notified

last date of

admission

(3) 80% 15 days or less

after the formally

notified last date

of admission

(4) 50% 30 days or less,

but more than 15

days after

formally notified

last date of

admission

(5) 00% More than 30

days after

formally notified

last date of

admission

e. This policy will remain in force for subsequent academic

session until the issuance of a revised policy by the UGC.

4. It may also be noted that the UGC has notified the Redressal

of Grievances of Students Regulations, 2023, wherein "delay in,

or denial of, the refund of fees due to a student who withdraws

admission within the time mentioned in the prospectus, subject

to guidelines, if any, issued by the Commission, from time to

time" has been defined as one of the grievances.

5. The Higher Education Institutions are requested to ensure

compliance with the fee refund policy for the academic session

2024-25 and redress any grievance by the provisions of the

University Grants Commission (Redressal of Grievances of

Students) Regulations, 2023.

6. Any HEI violating the provisions of UGC Fee Refund Policy

2024-25 shall be liable for punitive action as notified in Clause

5 of the UGC Notification on Refund of Fees and Non- Retention

of Original Certificates issued in October 2018.”

11

18. The respondent no. 5 college denied for applicability of the said guidelines

to any medical college or any dental college. It is the case of the college

authorities that the colleges are governed under the Dental Council of

India and West Bengal Dental Counseling Committee. Haldia Institute of

Dental Sciences and Research (HIDSAR) is the approved list of the UGC

but primary regulatory body for the said Institute is not the UGC.

19. In the case of Praneeth K. and Others (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme

Court decided the issue whether the Guidelines issued by the UGC have

any statutory force or only a non-statutory and advisory. The Hon’ble

Supreme Court held as follows:

“86. Now, coming to the first part of the issue that the

Guidelines are non-statutory and advisory only,

it is the case of both the parties that Guidelines

have been issued by UGC in exercise of power

under Section 12. Section 12 of the Act provides

that it shall be the general duty of the

Commission to take all such steps as it may

think fit for the promotion and coordination of

university education and for the determination

and maintenance of standards of teaching,

examination and research in universities. The

words “all such steps” are of wide import. The

steps referred to in Section 12 may include

issuance of guidelines, directions, circulars, etc.

The Guidelines dated 6-7-2020 have to be

treated to have been issued in exercise of

statutory powers vested in the Commission under

Section 12. Guidelines issued in exercise of

statutory powers, thus, cannot be said to be non-

statutory.

12

87. There is one more reason to hold the Guidelines

have statutory force. The University Grants

Commission, in exercise of power under Section

26 sub-section (1) of the 1956 Act has made the

Regulations, namely, “the UGC (Minimum

Standards of Instruction for the Grant of the

Master's Degree through Formal Education) the

2003 Regulations”, on which both learned

counsel for the petitioners as well as learned

counsel for UGC have placed reliance. Regulation

6, which deals with “examination and

evaluation” contains following regulation as

Regulation 6.1:

“6.1. The university shall adopt the guidelines

issued by UGC and other statutory bodies

concerned from time to time in respect of

conduct of examinations.”

88. The statutory Regulation, 2003 thus, categorically

requires universities to adopt the Guidelines

issued by UGC, hence, it is the statutory duty of

the universities to adopt the guidelines issued by

UGC. It is the statutory obligation of the

universities to adopt the Guidelines and the

Guidelines cannot be ignored by terming it as

non-statutory or advisory.”

20. The policy dated 12

th

June, 2024, issued by the UGC after consideration

of the representations of students and parents on the non-refund of fees

by the Higher Education Institutions on cancellation/ withdrawal of

admission. In paragraph 3(a) of the said guidelines provides that a full

refund of fees shall be made by the Higher Education Institutions on

account of all cancellations of admission/ migration of students upto 30

th

September, 2024 and with a deduction of not more than Rs. 1,000/- as

processing fees upto 31

st

October, 2024.

13

21. The petitioner herein got admitted in the college on 29

th

August, 2024 and

deposited the total amount of Rs. 9,50,000/-. On 10

th

September, 2024,

the petitioner sent an email to the college authorities informing that she

wanted to discontinue the MDS course and requested to return her

original testimonials and the amount of Rs. 9,50,000/-.

22. The guidelines issued by the UGC dated 12

th

June, 2024 provide for a full

refund of fees, if the admission is cancelled up to 30

th

September, 2024.

The petitioner has informed the college that she is not intending to

continue MDS course and requested for refund of fees deposited on 10

th

September, 2024.

23. Considering the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and

Clause 3(a) of the Guidelines dated 12

th

June, 2024, the petitioner is

entitled to get the full amount of Rs.9,50,000/- from the respondent no.5.

24. The respondent no. 5 has relied upon the Circular dated 22

nd

July, 2024,

issued by the WBMCC and the bond executed by the petitioner on 29

th

August, 2024 which reads as follows:

“Govt. of West Bengal

Directorate of Medical Education

Swasthya Bhavan, GN-29, Sector – V, Salt Lake,

Kolkata – 700091

Memo No. HFW-23099/206/2023/M/1832 Dated 22.07.2024

Urgent Notice related to Seat Surrender for WB NEET MDS 2024

Counseling

14

The seat surrender facility for Round 1 is available from 11 am till 2

pm of 24.07.2024, 25.07.2024 and 26.07.2024. Similarly the seat

surrender facility is available for Round 2 from 11 am till 2 pm of

10.08.2024, 12.08.2024 and 13.08.2024.

It is hereby further reiterated that the seat surrender of the admitted

candidate during the process of Round 1 is allowed without any

penalty money. The seat surrender of the admitted candidate

during the process of Round 2 is allowed but with forfeiture of

admission fees. Such candidate must apply in person before the

admitted college for seat surrender and must receive the server

generated Seat surrender letter. Otherwise, the name of such

candidate shall continue to appear in the admitted candidate list of the

said college. Such candidate is however not allowed any further in the

counseling process. The seat surrender is not allowed from Round 3

counseling any further till the counseling process is over. The seal

surrender with payment of bond penalty is possible only after the

counseling of all round is over for the session 2024-25.

This is in the interest of public service and all concerned are hereby

informed accordingly.

Director of Medical Education and Chairman WBMCC

Govt. of West Bengal”

“DISCONTINUITY BOND

Discontinuity Bond by the candidate taking admission in Post

graduate Degree Course (MDS) at Haldia Institute of Dental

Sciences and Research, for the session 2024-2025.

I, Dr. Sreeparna Ghosh



S/o/D/o Ardhendu Ghosh

Resident of Boro Kalitala, Chandannagar, Hooghly, West Bengal

____________________________________________________________________

have taken admission in Post Graduate degree course (MDS) at Haldia

Institute of Dental Sciences and Research, Banbishnupur, PO-

Balughata, PS-Bhawanipur, Haldia, Pin – 721645, Purba Medinipur,

under Management Quota seat do hereby undertake to pay the

remaining amount of total tuition fee of the entire MDS course (Three

15

years) if I resign or discontinue the course before completion of the

tenure.

Full Signature of the Candidate Sreeparna Ghosh………………………….

Full Signature of the Guardian Ardhendu Ghosh……………………………

Candidate Mobile No.8240902004…Guardian Mobile No.9831946435.

E-mail ID: ct3326834319@gmail.com Date 29/08/24. Place Kolkata..

Full Signature of the Witness Timir Baran Sinha…………………………..”

25. In the case of Islamic Academy of Education (supra), the Hon’ble

Supreme Court held that:

“8. It must be mentioned that during

arguments it was pointed out to us that some

educational institutions are collecting, in advance,

the fees for the entire course i.e. for all the years. It

was submitted that this was done because the

institute was not sure whether the student would

leave the institute midstream. It was submitted

that if the student left the course in midstream then

for the remaining years the seat would lie vacant

and the institute would suffer. In our view an

educational institution can only charge prescribed

fees for one semester/year. If an institution feels

that any particular student may leave in midstream

then, at the highest, it may require that student to

give a bond/bank guarantee that the balance fees

for the whole course would be received by the

institute even if the student left in midstream. If

any educational institution has collected fees in

advance, only the fees of that semester/year can

be used by the institution. The balance fees must

be kept invested in fixed deposits in a nationalised

bank. As and when fees fall due for a

semester/year only the fees falling due for that

semester/year can be withdrawn by the

institution. The rest must continue to remain

deposited till such time that they fall due. At the

end of the course the interest earned on these

deposits must be paid to the student from whom

the fees were collected in advance.”

16

26. In the case of M. Sumer (supra), the Madras High Court considered the

case of Islamic Academy of Education and held that:

“5. The learned counsel for the respondents

placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme

Court in Islamic Academy of Education vs. The

State of Karnataka reported in (2003) 6 SCC 697.

In that case, it was stated that an educational

institution can only charge prescribed fees for one

semester/year. If an institution feels that any

student may leave in midstream then, a

bond/bank guarantee can be obtained for the

whole course. If any institution has collected fees in

advance, that amount can be kept in a Fixed

Deposit and it can be utilized year after year and

the interest on such deposit can be returned to the

student. The Islamic Academy’s case came up for

consideration by the Supreme Court in P.A.

Inamdar vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2005

(6) SCC 537. The passage quoted by the

respondent do not find acceptance in that case.

Further nowhere in the said judgment, there is any

reference to withholding of the Transfer and other

certificates.

6. The respondent cannot trace any

sustenance from the said judgment to withhold the

Transfer Certificate only on the ground that the full

fees for 3

rd

and 4

th

year were not paid. In the

present case, the petitioner did not even attend his

second year class.”

27. In the case of Shireen M.T. (supra), the Kerala High Court held that:

“10. The case of the College is that since the

petitioners have not fulfilled their bonded

obligation, the College is entitled to withhold their

certificates. The petitioners do not admit their

liability. In other words, the certificates of the

petitioners are withheld by the College for enforcing

a disputed liability. Even assuming that the

agreement/bond executed by the petitioners in

favour of the College authorising the College to

withhold their certificates is not void for want of

17

consideration, the question arises is whether the

certificates of the petitioners can be withheld for

enforcing a disputed liability. This question

assumes importance in the light of the large

number of similar litigations instituted before this

Court in the recent past. A bond is only an

instrument by which a person obliges or binds

himself to another for payment of a sum of money

or in the performance of any other act. It is

fundamental that if a person does not fulfill the

bonded obligation, he is liable to pay the amount

agreed upon and if he does not pay the amount

agreed upon, in a country where rule of law

prevails, the payment has to be enforced through a

court of law. It cannot be said that non-payment of

the amounts covered by the bond will always be

without any basis. In some cases, it may be

without any basis, but in some others, it may be

due to some reason which the person concerned

believes to be a justifiable reason for non payment.

The sustainability or otherwise of the reason, on

the basis of which the liability under the bond is

denied, has to be examined by the court through

the process of which the payment is to be enforced.

If the practice of withholding the documents as a

means to realise the disputed amounts is permitted

to be adopted, the person affected would be

compelled to forgo the defences, if any, available to

him. Further, education has always been, and

continues to be one of the most important needs of

mankind. Every citizen has a right to education

and State is under an obligation to establish

educational institutions to enable the citizens to

enjoy the said right. The recent change in the social

and economic fabric of the country has, however,

created a situation where it is inevitable for the

State to permit private educational institutions to

meet the requirements in the field of education.

Education is essentially a charitable activity. As

such, even when private bodies establish

educational institutions, the object shall be charity

and not profit. Of course, reasonable revenue

surplus can be generated by the institutions for the

development of education and expansion of the

institutions. Certificates of education/qualification

are very important documents as far as students

18

are concerned. Non availability of the certificates

establishing educational qualifications may result

in deleterious consequences as far as students are

concerned, for, the same are the first and foremost

documents insisted for employment and higher

studies. It is trite that whatever tends to injustice of

operation, restraint of legal rights, whatever tends

to the obstruction of justice and whatever is against

the morals can be said to be against public policy.

In other words, matters which concern the public

good and the public interest connotes the public

policy. [See P. Rathinam v. Union of India (1994) 3

SCC 394]. It is also trite that the principles

governing public policy are capable, on proper

occasion, of expansion or modification and the

court in a given case is empowered to declare a

practice as opposed to public policy in consonance

with public conscience and in keeping with public

good and public interest. [See Central Inland Water

Transport Corporation v. Brojo Nath

Ganguly [(1986) 3 SCC 156] and State of

Rajasthan v. Basant Nahata [(2005) 12 SCC 77].

The agreements obtained by the College from the

petitioners authorising them to withhold the

certificates of the petitioners for payment of the

amounts covered by the bonds, if any, executed by

the petitioners, cannot be accepted as an approved

social conduct and the same, in that sense, is

unethical. Further, agreements of that nature are

against public good and public interest as well. In

the circumstances, even assuming that the

agreement/bond executed by the petitioners in

favour of the College authorising them to withhold

their certificates is not void for want of

consideration, the same is void as opposed to

public policy, in the light of Section 23 of the Indian

Contract Act.”

28. Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, provides that for a contract to

be valid, there must be the legality of object and consideration. The Object

is the purpose for which the parties enter into a contract. The fulfillment

of the object leads to transfer of the consideration agreed from one party to

19

other. The legality of the object in contract law stipulates that the

consideration and the object of a contract are considered legal except

when:

i. They are specifically forbidden by law,

ii. They are fraudulent in nature,

iii. The nature of the object and the consideration is such

that it defeat the purpose of law,

iv. They involve injury or harm to a person(s) or property,

v. Are considered immoral by the court of law and

vi. Are against the public policy.

29. In the present case, the UGC has issued Guidelines on 12

th

June, 2024

with respect to the Fee Refund Policy. The College has issued circular on

22

nd

July, 2024 after the guidelines issued by the UGC. The College has

not considered the policy decision taken by the UGC while issuance of the

circular. By ignoring the UGC policy, the College has obtained

Discontinuity Bond from the petitioner.

30. There is no condition in the Discontinuity Bond that the College will retain

the original testimonials of the petitioner till the payment is made.

31. This Court finds that the College without considering the UGC policy

dated 12

th

June, 2024, has refused to refund the fee and original

testimonials of the petitioner.

20

32. In view of the above, the respondent no. 5 is directed to refund the

amount of Rs. 9,50,000/- along with all original testimonials of the

petitioner within two weeks from the date of receipt of his order.

33. WPA No. 28769 of 2024 is allowed.

Parties shall be entitled to act on the basis of a server copy of the

Judgment placed on the official website of the Court.

Urgent Xerox certified photocopies of this judgment, if applied for, be

given to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.

(Krishna Rao, J.)