A writ petition challenging the allocation of lateral entry quota seats for the academic year 2016-17 was filed. Upon hearing, counsel stated the matter had become infructuous due to the passage of time. The court dismissed the petition as infructuous.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI^x (Special Original Jurisdiction)
o
h,. H
't ■' Jf
rrV 2:fl
o. •A
FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION NO: 22131 OF 2016
Between:
Refx by its Honorary Secretary, Sri. Ch. Gangireddy S/o. Narayan Reddy
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3^'' and 4"^ Respondent in limiting the intake of students to 20% under the supernumerary quota for allotment of seats in the lateral entry quota into the 2"^* year B. Tech courses, for the academic year 2016-2017 in pursuance of the advertisement issued by the 4'^’ respondent for counseling excluding the unfilled vacant seats of the petitioner college in respect of the 1® year course, as arbitrary, illegal, violative of the norms framed by the 5 respondent, and direct the Respondents No.1 to 4 to allocate seats to the Petitioner colleges in the lateral entry quota in the 20% supernumerary quota plus the unfilled seats of the first year.
I.A. NO: 1 OF 2016fWPMP. NO: 27196 OF 20161
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to allot the students in lateral entry quota to the petitioner colleges in the 20% supernumerary quota plus the vacancies of the first year of the respective B. Tech courses in compliance with clause 1.9 of Chapter VI of the Norms prescribed by the 5th respondent for the academic year 2016-17 pending disposal of the above writ petition.
Counsel for the Petltioner(s):SRI. KIRAN KUMAR VADLAMUDI
Counsel for the Respondents No.1,2: GP FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION
Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI. C. SUDESH ANAND, SC FOR APECET2016
Counsel for the Respondent No.4: M/s. S. PARINEETA, SC FOR HIGHER EDUCATION
Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI.K. RAMAKANTH REDDY
The Court made the following: ORDER
HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION No.22131 of 2nifi
ORDER:
The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief;-
“....to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd and 4th Respondent in limiting the intake of students to 20% under the supernumerary quota for allotment of seats in the lateral entry quota into the 2"^ year B.Tech. courses for the academic year 2016-201 7 in pursuance of the advertisement issued by the 4th respondent for counseling excluding the unfilled vacant seats of the petitioner college m respect of the 1st year course, as arbitrary, illegal violative of the norms framed by the 5th respondent, and direct the Respondents No. 1 to 4 to allocate seats to the Petitioner colleges in the lateral entry quota in the 20% supernumerary quota plus the unfilled seats of the first yearand to pass...."
- Today when the matter came up for hearing, Mr.Kiran Kumar Vadlamudi, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that as the matter pertains tothe engineering admission for academic year 2016-17, the cause in the writ petition does not suivive for further adjudication and the matter has become infructuous.
2
- Considering the above submission, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no
order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. SD/- K. KASI RAO ACHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To,
Pradesh. [OUT]
t nH! !° M?'O REDDY Advocate [OPUC] S. PARINEETA, Advocate SC FOR HIGHER EDUCATION
HIGH COURT
DATED:05/01/2024
ORDER
WP.No.22131 of 2016
^V
5 2 7 MAY 2IKA CO,
'll
^L£/^SPATCWt|^^
^rnpm 111 33/^il^
DISMISSING THE WP AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition survives for adjudication regarding admission norms for the 2016-17 academic year?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Annamacharya Institute Of Technology & Sciences
Chaitanya Engineering College
Gokul Institute of Technology & Sciences
A.V.R. & S.V.R. Engineering College
The State of Andhra Pradesh
The Commissioner of Technical Education
V.Sujatha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
