Judgment Intelligence
Petition AllowedNarendra Mahala v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
2025:RJ-JP:40931
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15414/2025
- Court
- Rajasthan High Court
- Date of Decision
- 8 October 2025
- Bench
- Justice Sameer Jain
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Writ jurisdiction (Constitution of India); NEET UG Medical and Dental Admission/Counseling 2025 information booklet — security-deposit forfeiture clause
Final Outcome
Petition allowed. The petitioner may take part in the third counseling round; if allotted a college on merit, his deposit and the balance already paid are adjusted towards its fee (paras 12, 14). Copies go to the NMC, Health Ministry and Chief Secretary (para 15).
Key holdings
- A forfeiture clause for candidates who do not join cannot reach one never permitted to join (para 7.4).
- A short fee window with two holidays and the guardian’s death showed the candidate’s bona fides (paras 7.1-7.2, 7.5).
- Forfeiting a security deposit without justification or tangible loss is unjust enrichment (paras 8, 10-11).
- Condonable procedural delays should not halt a bona fide candidate when no third-party rights exist (para 13).
- The Court confined the order to its peculiar facts; it is not to be treated as a precedent (para 14).
Brief Facts
The petitioner qualified NEET-UG 2025, paid a Rs 5 lakh security deposit and, after no allotment in the first round, was allotted an MBBS seat at a private college, respondent No. 3, in the second (paras 2, 7.3). The balance was due by 2 PM on 30.09.2025 (paras 3, 7.3). His great-grandmother, on whom he depended, died on 29.09.2025; 27-28.09.2025 were holidays (paras 7.1-7.2). He paid the Rs 13.90 lakh balance the next day, and the seat was treated as vacant and forwarded (para 7.3). He sought condonation or adjustment of his deposit in the third round (paras 1, 5). The Counseling Board replied that the time limits apply nationwide and about 5,500 candidates paid in time (para 6).
Court's Findings
The booklet clause forfeits the security deposit of a candidate allotted a seat in round 2 or later who ‘does not join’. Because the petitioner was never permitted to join, the time for joining never arose, and the forfeiture was invalid (para 7.4). A payment window of 26-30.09.2025, with two holidays and one day lost to the death, showed his bona fides; the respondents could not say how money forfeited for a private-college seat is kept or used (para 7.5). Relying on Mafatlal Industries on unjust enrichment (para 8), the Court noted that aspirants from humble backgrounds are asked to pay heavy fees within three or four days (para 9). The State, a welfare state, was acting as a compulsive litigant by insisting on payment within an unreasonably short period made up mostly of holidays, and showed no tangible loss (para 10). The Counseling Board's retention and forfeiture of the deposit was a classic instance of unjust enrichment (para 11). Exercising equity within its writ jurisdiction, the Court held that condonable procedural delays should not halt a bona fide candidate's career when no third-party rights have arisen (para 13).
Legal Principle
A clause forfeiting the security deposit of a candidate who does not join an allotted seat cannot be applied to one never permitted to join because the balance fee came late. Retaining such a deposit without loss or purpose is unjust enrichment, and a condonable delay should not defeat a bona fide candidate (paras 7.4, 11, 13).
Precedents Relied Upon
- Mafatlal Industries Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (1997) 5 SCC 536
The doctrine of unjust enrichment, dealt with in the context of the Central Excise Act and the consumer welfare fund; its ratio was relied on in holding the forfeiture of the security deposit to be unjust enrichment.
