Tanvi Anil Sawant v. The Chairman Uceed Ceed Office And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

by SUNNY ANKUSHRAO THOTE Date:

2025.09.22 09:56:53 +0530 SUNNY ANKUSHRAO THOTE CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12279 OF 2025 Tanvi Anil Sawant

...Petitioner

Versus

The Chairman, UCEED-CEED Officer & Ors.

...Respondents

Mr. Aditya Shirke i/by Ms. Disha Shah, Mr. Shivraj Patne, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Ms. Kajal Gupta i/by M.V. Kini & Co., Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 4.

Mr. Rui Rodrigues a/w Mr. V. Jain, Advocate for Respondent No.5/UOI.

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ.

DATE : 20th SEPTEMBER, 2025 P.C. :- 1.

The learned Advocate for the Petitioner has made solemn statements on instructions, as under :- a] The Petitioner is eligible for admission to the IIT Indore. b] The Petitioner is not beyond the cut-off list. c] The Petitioner's All India Rank ('AIR') is 120. d] The admissions in the total five rounds permitted as per

the brochure, have concluded with admitting the AIR 119 rank holder.

e] The brochure does not permit the sixth round for IIT Bombay, though the spot admissions are permitted in IIT Jabalpur.

f] One seat from the Open Category to which the Petitioner belongs, is presently available with Respondent No. 4. 2.

The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 4 submits, on instructions, that Respondent No.4 does not permit spot admissions, though it is conceded that one seat from the Open Category and one seat from the Reserved Category are vacant today.

3.

Issue notice to the Respondents, returnable on 9th October, 2025. The matter be listed in the 'Urgent Supplementary Board'.

4.

Let the affidavit in reply be filed, at least week, prior to the returnable date.

5.

On the point of interim relief, the learned Advocate cites Nayan Bansal V/s. Union of India and Another, 2016 SCC OnLine P&H 15803. We decline to grant an ex parte ad-interim adhoc admission in view of the fact that we will first have to conclude, whether a spot admission with Respondent No.4 can be ordered in law by exercising the Writ of Mandamus.

6.

In the event we eventually conclude in favour of the Petitioner and grant her admission, the time spent in litigation, which is likely to be a reason for shortfall in the attendance of the Petitioner, shall be liable to be condoned.

(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)