Calcutta High Court
WPA/18423/2026 of SHAONKALI MAJI Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. on 31 July 2026
Item No.11 Subrata Bhattacharyya AR(C) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side WPA No.18423 of 2026 Shaonkali Maji -vs- The Union of India & Ors. Mr. S. Dasgupta Mr. Bikramjit Mandal …for the petitioner Mr. Anil Kumar Gupta Mr. Madan Mohan Roy
31-07-2026
Item No.11
Subrata
Bhattacharyya
AR(C)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
WPA No.18423 of 2026
Shaonkali Maji
-vs-
The Union of India & Ors.
Mr. S. Dasgupta
Mr. Bikramjit Mandal …for the petitioner Mr. Anil Kumar Gupta Mr. Madan Mohan Roy …for Union of India Mr. U.S. Menon Mr. Abhrup Chakraborty …for NTA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The petitioner participated in NEET (UG), 2026. She secured 146 marks. According to her, she ought to have been awarded around 650 marks. Prayer has been made to produce the original OMR sheet.
2. It is submitted on behalf of the respondents that scanned OMR of the petitioner was duly forwarded in the registered e-mail ID of the petitioner. The same was available on the website of the authority on and from July 13, 2026 till July 15, 2026 (11 a.m.).
3. Upon hearing the parties it appears that the petitioner is unable to make out any case for which direction is required to be passed upon NTA for production of original OMR. Scanned copy of the OMR was duly available in the website and copy thereof was mailed at the registered email ID of the petitioner.
4. In view of the above, the prayer of the petitioner for direction upon the authority for production of original OMR cannot be accepted.
5. Application made by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005 is alleged to be pending consideration before the authority.
6. On a perusal of the said application, it appears that the same is not in the proper form and not addressed to the competent authority.
7. Accordingly, no direction can be passed upon the authority to act on the said application made under the RTI Act.
8. Hence, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
9. All parties are to act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this court.
10. Certified server copy of this order, if applied for, shall be made available to the parties. [Amrita Sinha, J]