Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
10. We have heard Mr Gaurav Aggarwal, senior counsel appearing on behalf of ninety- one petitioners before this Court in these proceedings and Mr Gopal Sankarnarayanan, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the second and third respondents.
11. The original fee when the students took admission was Rs five lakhs per annum for the All India quota seats and Rs four lakhs per annum, for the State quota seats. The fee structure as posted by the nodal agency on their website (Annexure P-2) indicated that this fee was subject to the final decision in the writ petitions which were pending before the High Court.
12. The challenge to the fixation of fees is yet to attain finality since the students’ petitions have been admitted by the High Court. In the meantime, it is common ground that the petitioners have paid an amount of approximately Rs 34 lakhs per student for the All-India quota seats and approximately Rs 28 lakhs per student for the State quota seats.
13. Mr Gaurav Aggarwal, senior counsel states that the above figure, as indicated to the court, is inclusive of: (i) The security deposit of Rs three lakhs which has been adjusted; and (ii) Two installments which were paid in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 28 April 2023. [2024] 9 S.C.R. Sahil Bhargava & Ors. v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors.
14. At this stage, bearing in mind the above amounts which have been paid, we are of the view that an equitable interim order which will apply during the pendency of proceedings before the High Court should be passed so as to enable the students to obtain the return of their original documents to pursue their postgraduate studies and practice medicine. Absent such a direction, the students, despite having completed their undergraduate medical studies and internship, would not be able to either pursue medicine or secure admission for higher studies. The order of this Court dated 28 April 2023 sought to obviate such an imbroglio by issuing a direction for the deposit of two installments of fees and requested the High Court to dispose of the petition. Instead of doing so, the High Court simply admitted the petition and posted it to March 2025. No early resolution of the dispute seems likely. The students cannot be left in the lurch to an uncertain future.
15. We accordingly direct that conditional on the petitioners depositing an amount of Rs 7.50 lakhs each with the second and third respondents over and above the amounts which have already been deposited, they shall be entitled to a return of their original documents submitted at the time of obtaining admission. This is subject to the condition that the petitioners shall file an undertaking to pay the balance amount in the event that they are called upon to do so at the final disposal of the pending writ petitions.
16. The interim order of the High Court shall stand modified in the above terms. It is clarified that this order does not express any opinion on the merits of the underlying writ petitions pending before the High Court.
17. The Special Leave Petition is accordingly disposed of.
18. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. Result of the Case: Special Leave Petition disposed of. †Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain