Uttarakhand High Court
WPMB/8/2026 of VISHAL NAUTIYAL Vs H N B UTTARAKHAND MEDICAL EDUCATION UNIVERSITY on 7 January 2026
UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/B) No. 8 of 2026 Vishal Nautiyal ….....Petitioner Versus HNB Uttarakhand Medical Education University and others ….….Respondents Present:- Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ayush Khali, Advocate holding brief of Mr.
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (M/B) No. 8 of 2026
Vishal Nautiyal
….....Petitioner
Versus
HNB Uttarakhand Medical Education University and others
….….Respondents
Present:-
Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Ayush Khali, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Shailendra Nauriyal, Advocate for the respondents.
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.
JUDGMENT
Coram:
Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.
Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
It is the case of the petitioner that he was eligible for admission in under Graduate Medical Course. He appeared in NEET UG-2025 and he was offered provisional admission to Gautam Budhha Chikitsa Mahavidyalaya/respondent no.3. He deposited total fee to the tune of Rs.26,82,700/-. It is the case of the petitioner that suddenly, he was diagnosed serious health problem (Neuro). He could not continue his studies. He requested the respondent no.1 and respondent no.3 to surrender his seat and cancellation for admission with the request that it should be allotted to some other person. The grievance of the petitioner is that his original documents as well as fee have not been refunded by the respondent.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
2
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has made a representation to the respondent no.1 for refund of his documents and fee, but till date no decision is taken on his representation.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that in case, if a fresh representation is preferred, it shall be decided within a period of four weeks by the respondent no.1.
5. The Court takes on record the statement given by learned counsel for the respondents.
6. The petition is disposed of with the liberty to the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the respondent no.1 within two weeks, with further directions to the respondent no.1 that in case, such a representation is made, it may be decided by the respondent no.1 within a period of four weeks, in accordance with law.
(Alok Mahra, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.)
07.01.2026 Sanjay SANJAY KANOJIA Digitally signed by SANJAY KANOJIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=e50e50b49596520698eff87e0a08bbd50 4686df4d1afc60f54a287831dec46fe, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26EEB7122ED0DD23233A255DD8 EC450A84B515A087CAEFD1B3179A7DEAE40699, cn=SANJAY KANOJIA Date: 2026.01.09 17:18:59 +05'30'