Dr. Sonika vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

S.K. Mishra, J

The matter is taken up virtually.

Heard Mr. Vinay Kumar, learned Counsel for the writ applicant and Mr. Suyash Pant, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

In this case, the petitioner has prayed the following reliefs:

“(A) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to take a decision on the representation dated

27.12.2021(annexure-5) to the writ petition, whereby the petitioner has requested for permitting her to deposit the bond amount along with

the interest in a time bound manner as the NEET PG Counelling-2021 is scheduled to be held from 17th January, 2020.

(b) Issue any suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(c) Award the cost of writ petition to the petitioner.â€​

Learned counsel for the petitioner confined his prayer only to the extent that the petitioner’s representation dated 27.12.2021 (Annexure-5) may

be directed to be disposed of.

In that view of the matter, the writ application is disposed of directing the respondent no. 1 to take a decision on the representation of the petitioner

dated 27.12.2021 (Annexure No. 5) within a period of 10 days from the date of production of certified copy of this Order before him. Learned counsel

for the petitioner undertakes that the petitioner shall produce a downloaded copy of this Order from the High Court website with an endorsement of

correctness by Mr. Vinay Kumar, within 7 days along with copy of the writ application.

Learned Standing Counsel shall also intimate about this order to the authorities concerned.