Anil K. Narendran, J.

1. The 2nd respondent in W.P.(C)No.11517 of 2026 has filed this writ appeal, invoking the provisions under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the order dated 30.03.2026 of the learned Single Judge in that writ petition. The 1st respondent herein-petitioner has filed that writ petition, invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 3 therein to accept her application and to permit her to appear in the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (UG) 2026 [NEET(UG)-2026] conducted by the 2nd respondent National Testing Agency (appellant herein) scheduled to be held on 03.05.2026, by extending the time for remittance of examination fee; a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 3 therein to allow the petitioner to remit the examination fee for NEET(UG)-2026, by reactivating the payment option in her case, in the portal of the National Testing Agency. The interim relief sought for in the writ petition is an order directing respondents 1 to 3 therein to accept the application of the petitioner to appear in NEET (UG)-2026 conducted by the 2nd respondent National Testing Agency (appellant herein) scheduled to be held on 03.05.2026, by extending the time to accept the application fee from the petitioner, by reactivating the payment option in her case, in the portal of the National Testing Agency, pending disposal of the writ petition.

2. On 24.03.2026, when the writ petition came up for admission, the learned Single Judge directed the learned Standing Counsel for National Testing Agency to get instructions and file a statement.

3. Pursuant to the direction contained in the order dated 24.03.2026, a counter statement dated 30.03.2026 was filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent National Testing Agency, opposing the reliefs sought for, producing therewith Annexures R2(a) to R2(j) documents. The said counter statement was presented on 30.03.2026.

4. By the impugned interim order dated 30.03.2026, the learned Single Judge directed the 2nd respondent National Testing Agency (appellant herein) to accept fee from the petitioner for enrolling herself as a candidate for NEET(UG)-2026 examination, which is scheduled to be held on 03.05.2026. The 2nd respondent was directed to open the portal, for the petitioner alone, on a day to be intimated to the petitioner, enabling her to remit the fee. Challenging the said interim order dated 30.03.2026 of the learned Single Judge, the appellant-2nd respondent is before this Court in this writ appeal.

5. We heard arguments of the learned Standing Counsel for National Testing Agency, for the appellant-2nd respondent, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent-petitioner, the learned Central Government Counsel for the 2nd respondent, the learned Standing Counsel for National Medical Commission for the 3rd respondent and also the learned Senior Government Pleader for the 4th respondent State.

6. During the course of arguments, the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-2nd respondent raised contentions with specific reference to the provisions contained in Annexure R2(a) prospectus for NEET(UG)-2026, with specific reference to the instructions contained therein under the heading - A. Important instructions and the procedure for online payment in appendix VII. The learned Standing Counsel has also relied on some of the orders/judgments produced along with the counter statement.

7. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent-petitioner addressed arguments reiterating the contentions raised in the writ petition.

8. We do not propose to consider those rival contentions touching the merits of the matter pending adjudication in W.P.(C)No.11517 of 2026, in this intra-court appeal, since the challenge made is against the interim order dated 30.03.2026 of the learned Single Judge. One of the specific grounds raised in this writ appeal is that by the interim order dated 30.03.2026, the learned Single Judge virtually granted the final relief sought for in W.P.(C)No.11517 of 2026.

9. In State of U.P. v. Ram Sukhi Devi [(2005) 9 SCC 733] the Apex Court was dealing with a case in which the final relief sought for in the writ petition has been granted as an interim measure. The Division Bench of the High Court did not interfere with the said order in the intra-court appeal. The Apex Court noticed that there was no reason indicated by learned Single Judge as to why the Government order dated 26.10.1998 was to be ignored. Whether the petitioner was entitled to any relief in the writ petition has to be adjudicated at the time of its final disposal. The Apex Court has, on numerous occasions, observed that the final relief sought for should not be granted at an interim stage. The position is worsened if the interim direction has been passed with stipulation that the applicable Government order has to be ignored. Time and again the Apex Court has deprecated the practice of granting interim orders, which practically give the principal relief sought in the petition, for no better reason than that of a prima facie case having been made out, without being concerned about the balance of convenience, the public interest and a host of other considerations. See: CCE v. Dunlop India Ltd. [(1985) 1 SCC 216], State of Rajasthan v. Swaika Properties [(1985) 3 SCC 217], State of U.P. v. Visheshwat [(1995) Supp. 3 SCC 590], Dr. Bharat Bhushan Sonaji Kshirsagar v. Abdul Khalik Mohd. Musa [(1995) Supp. 2 SCC 593], Shiv Shankar v. Board of Directors, U.P. SRT [(1995) Supp. 2 SCC 726] and Commissioner/Secretary to Government Health and Medical Education Department v. Dr. Ashok Kumar Kohli [(1995) Supp. 4 SCC 214]. The Apex Court noticed that no basis has been indicated as to why learned Single Judge thought the course as directed was necessary to be adopted. Even it was not indicated that a prima facie case was made out, though as noted above, that itself is not sufficient. Therefore, the Apex Court set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge, as affirmed by the Division Bench, however without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

10. In State of Kerala v. Pradeepkumar A.V. [2025 (1) KHC 672], this Court was dealing with a writ petition seeking a declaration that the senior-most Registrar of the High Court appointed by promotion from the High Court Service is entitled to a higher grade in the scale of pay Rs.129300-166800 (Special Secretary’s scale), with effect from 01.04.2021, as recommended by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice in the letter dated 16.02.2021 and by the 11th Pay Revision Commission in its report [Part II, February, 2021]; and a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent to accept the proposal made by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice as per the letter dated 16.02.2021 and to issue orders sanctioning a higher grade in the scale of pay Rs.129300-166800 with effect from 01.04.2021 to the senior-most Registrar appointed by promotion from the High Court service, on a par with the scale of pay of Special Secretary to the Government. The interim relief sought for in the writ petition was an order directing the 2nd respondent High Court to issue orders sanctioning a higher grade with effect from 01.04.2021, in the scale of pay Rs.129300-166800, as recommended by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice in the letter dated 16.02.2021 and by the 11th Pay Revision Commission in its report, to the senior-most Registrar appointed by promotion from the High Court Service, pending disposal of the writ petition. On 12.12.2024, when the writ petition came up for consideration, the learned Single Judge passed the following order;

                  ''Post this matter on 10.01.2025. If the recommendation of the Hon’ble Chief Justice dated 16.02.2021 is not implemented before the next date of posting of this writ petition, the Chief Secretary of the State shall remain present before this Court on that day itself.''

11. In Pradeepkumar A.V. [2025 (1) KHC 672], while setting aside the said interim order of the learned Single Judge, this Court held that the interim relief sought for in the writ petition is nothing but the final relief. Therefore, instead of passing the impugned interim order dated 12.12.2024, the learned Single Judge ought to have considered the rival contentions and decided the question as to whether the writ petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus, as sought for in that writ petition. At any rate, by way of an interim order, respondents 1 to 3 in the writ petition cannot be directed to implement before the next posting of the writ petition, the recommendation made by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice in the letter dated 16.02.2021, failing which the Chief Secretary shall remain present before the Court on 10.01.2025 itself.

12. Viewed in the light of the law laid in the decisions referred to supra, conclusion is irresistible that when the interim order dated 30.03.2026 of the learned Single Judge, which is under challenge in this intra-court appeal, is nothing but the final relief sought for in W.P.(C)No.11517 of 2026, the same cannot be sustained in law.

13. In the result, this writ appeal is disposed of by setting aside the interim order dated 30.03.2026 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.11517 of 2026, on the aforesaid ground; however, after leaving open the legal and factual contentions raised by both sides.

                  It would be open to the 1st respondent-petitioner to seek expeditious disposal of the writ petition by the learned Single Judge, in which the counter statement dated 30.03.2026 on behalf of the 2nd respondent National Testing Agency is already on record.