Disposed

J.v.Narasimha Raju v. M/S.Sagi Rama Krishnam Raju Engineering College

Andhra Pradesh HC5 Feb 2024WA/1313/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ appeal without interference on the merits, leaving the substantive order under challenge in pending proceedings before the single Judge. The Court held that pendency would not prevent AICTE from determining the appellant's locus standi.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was disposed of. The AICTE is directed to determine the locus standi of the appellant, and such orders must be communicated to the Single Judge.

J.v.Narasimha Raju Vs M/S.Sagi Rama Krishnam… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶5

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶6

WRIT APPEAL NO: 1313 OF 2023

¶7

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the Order dt.06-07-2023 in I.A.No. 1/2023 in W.P.No. 15428/2023 on the file of the High Court.

¶8

Between:

¶9

J.V.Narasimha Raju, S/o.Venkata Narasimha Raju Aged 62 years, Occ: Retd., R/o.D.No.27-17-55/11C, Flat No. 105m, Lotus Regency (C), ASR Nagar Bhimavaram, - 534 202, W.G.District Andhra Pradesh.

¶10

...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT No.3

¶11

AND

¶12

M/s.Sagi Rama Krishnam Raju Engineering College, Chinna Amrniram, Bhimavaram, W.G. District Andhra Pradesh Rep.by its Secretary-cumCorrespondent.

¶13

...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶14

The state of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its. Principal Secretary Higher Education Department, A.P, Secretariat, Velagapudi Amaravati, Guntur District.

¶15

All India Council for Technical Education, Nelson Mandela Marg, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi - 110 070 Rep.by its Member Secretary.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2

¶17

lA NO: 3 OF 2023

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the Order dt.06-07-2023 passedⁱⁿ I.A.No. 1/2023 in W.P.No. 15428/2023 by the learned single Judge.

¶19

Counsel for the Appellant: SMT. THOTA SUNEETHA

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI A. KRISHNAM RAJU Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : SMT. M. UMA DEVI, SC FOR AlCTE

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

¶23

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKDR, CHIEP JUSTICE &

¶24

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶25

Writ Appeal No. 1315 of 2025

¶26

J.V. Narasimha Raju, S/o.Venkata Narasimlia Raju, 62 years, 0cc:Retd., R/0.D.N0.27-17-55/11G, Flat No. 105m, Lotus Regency (C), ASR Nagar, Bhimavaram - 534 202, W.G. District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶27

..Appellant

¶28

Versus

¶29

M/s. Sagi Rama Krishnam Raju Engineering College Chinna Ammiram, Bhimavaram, W.G. District, Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Secretary-cum-Correspondent &? two others.

¶30

..Respondents

¶31

Counsel for the appellant : Smt Thota Suneetha Counsel for respondent No.l : Mr. A. Krishnam Raju Counsel for respondent No.2 : Government Pleader for Higher Education. Counsel for respondent No.3 : Smt M. Uma Devi, Standing Counsel. Dt.:06.02.2024 P.C:

¶32

The present Letters Patent appeal has been preferred^against the judgment and order, dated 06.07.2023 passed in^lA.No.l of 2023 in W.P.No. 15428 of 2023.

¶33

¶34

HCJ & RRR,J WA 1313 2023

¶35

The appellant herein filed a complaint before the All India Council for Technical Education [AICTE] highlighting^certain irregularities committed by respondent No.l College viz., M/s. Sagi Rama Krishnam Raju Engmeering CoUege in regard to the building violations. It was also alleged that students undergoing M.Tech courses were reflected as faculty members, misuse of^fundsand manipulation of record m that regard and further that^therewasno separate MCA Department which was otherwise a pre-requisite^as per AICTE statute.

¶36

It appears that pursuant to the complaint so filed by the appellant herein, proceedings were mitiated by AICTE^whichwere challenged by the l^t respondent College by way of^{W.P.No.11013of} 2021 before the learned single Judge of this Court, who disposed of the petition by virtue of judgment and order, dated 01.10.2021, with a direction to the AICTE 1st respondent in the aforementioned petition to consider and determine whether^the appellant herein had the locus standi to file the complaint against the said Engineering College.

¶37

The AICTE by virtue of communication, dated 11.04.2022, based upon the complaint filed by the appellant herein,^directedthe 1st respondent Engineering College to appear before the Standing

¶38

¶39

HCJ & RRR,! WA_1313_2023

¶40

Gornplaint Scrutiny Committee along with, supporting^documents related to the complaint filled tiy the complainant.

¶41

The aforementioned proceedings became the subject matter^of chaUenge yet again in WP.No. 15428 of 2023 in which by virtue of order, dated 06.07.2023, which is the order impugned,^thelearned single Judge found a prima facie case in favour of the petitioner and stayed the further proceedings before the AICTE primarily^onthe ground that the AICTE had failed to determine the preliminary issue with regard to the locus of the appellant herein to file the complaint before the AICTE and that the enquiry was being proceeded with without such a determination.

¶42

It appears that even when the order impugned was passed as early as on 06.07.2023, the appellant herein has not even filed the reply to the writ petition much less has the appellant herein filed any application seeking the vacation of the interim orders passed by the learned single Judge.

¶43

Be that as it may, since the matter is already subjudice before the learned single Judge and only a prima facie^viewhas been expressed, we do not wish to mterfere in the order impugned, It would be open to the appellant herein to file objections^tothewrit petition seeking vacation/modification of the interim order so

¶44

¶45

HCJ & RRR,J WA 1313 2023

¶46

passed, which is impugned in the present appeal. However,^wewish to add that the pendency of the proceedings before^thelearned single Judge would not prevent the AICTE, in the meantime, to determine the locus standi of the appellant herein to file the complaint before the AICTE. Appropriate orders upon^such a consideration, if passed, would be brought to the notice of the learned single Judge by the appellant.

¶47

The Writ Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. No order^as to costs.

¶48

Pending miscellaneous apphcations, if any, shall stand^closed.

¶49

//TRUE COPY//

¶50

Sd/- M. RAMESH BABU DEPUTY^CrST^AR

¶51

SECTION OFFICER

¶52

To,

¶53

The Secretary-cum-Correspondent, M/s.Sagi Rama Krishnam Raju Engineering College, Chinna Amrniram, Bhimavaram, W.G.^{DistrictAndhra} Pradesh.

¶54

The Principal Secretary Higher Education Department,^{StateofAndhra} Pradesh, A.P, Secretariat, Velagapudi Amaravati, Guntur^District.

¶55

The Member Secretary All India Council for Technical Education, Nelson Mandela Marg, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi -110 070.

¶56

One CC to Smt. Thota Suneetha, Advocate [OPUC]

¶57

One CC to Sri A. Krishnam Raju, Advocate [OPUC]

¶58

Twd'CCs to GP for Higher Education, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. (OUT)

¶59

One CC to Smt. M. Uma Devi, SC for AICTE (OPUC)

¶60

Three C.D. Copies. Cnr

)

HIGH COURT

DATED:06/02/2024

ORDER

WA.No.1313of 2023

llCoDies> c^3lsilJV

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS

J.v.Narasimha Raju v. M/S.Sagi Rama Krishnam Raju Engineering College

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J.v.Narasimha Raju v. M/S.Sagi Rama Krishnam Raju Engineering College

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dredging Corporation of India, Vs M/s. Ims Ship Management Pvt. Ltd.

Gollapalli Chalapathi Sarma Vs the State of Ap

Yellapu Venkat Ramana Murthy, Vs High Court of Andhra Pradesh

Smt Gutta Padmavathi Vs Neerukonda Venkata Lakshmi

The State of Ap Vs Myla Srinivasa Rao

Nelapudi Veeranna Vs Korukonda Subba Rao