Dismissed

Balaji Institute of Technology and Science, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC4 Jan 2024WP/22903/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition sought a mandamus directing inclusion of the petitioner college in ECET-2016 web counselling for lateral entry into B.Tech Electronics and Communication Engineering for academic year 2016-17. Counsel stated the cause no longer survived as admissions pertained to 2016-17. The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous with no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

None granted; writ petition dismissed as infructuous without costs.

Balaji Institute of Technology and Science… — Education and Admissions | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 22903 OF 2nifi

Between;

...PETITIONER

AND

The Commissioner for Technical Education Hyderabad. B.R.K.R Complex, Masab Tank,

¶11

The Director Technical Education Hyderabad. B.R.K.R Complex, Masab Tank,

¶12

Bunding“svamTyfB^t°aa ^

¶13

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

intake of sfudents Tn P| '""'"“''0" “^^-portal in respect^ofthe irr£Si?ie~ conducting by the 4th respondent for'thTacademte year 2of6^i7°on th°e"gromd Lateral Entry for the academic year 2016-17 in rpc;n<=rt r,f fr:nc\ ci * ^ Communication Engineering, undergraduate cLrses "

¶16

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2016fWPMP. NO: 28168 OF 2016)

¶17

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 direct the respondent No.4 herein to include the petitioner college name in respect of ECE Electronics Communication Engineering undergraduate course in web counseling process for AP ECET -2016.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI T BALA MOHAN REDDY

¶19

Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI C SUDESH ANAND, SC FOR APHERMC

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI K RAMAKANTH REDDY, SC FOR AlCTE

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.22903 of 2016

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

The present Writ Petition came to be filed

¶27

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking

¶28

the following relief:-

¶29

“....to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly a writ in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No. 2 to 4 not including the name of petitioner institution in the web-portal in respect of the intake of students in (ECE) Electronics Communication Engineering B.Tech. undergraduate course for the purpose of making admissions for Lateral Entry into 2^ Year with the eligible candidates through the ECET-2016 counseling conducting by the 4"* respondent for the academic year 2016-17 on the ground that there were no admissions in said course for first year during the academic year 2015-16 being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 19(lj(g) of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to allow the petitioner institution to admit students into 2'^ year of B. Tech, courses under Lateral Entry for the academic year 2016-17 in respect of ECE Electronics Communication Engineering undergraduate courses and to pass....”

¶30

\ \

¶31

Today when the matter came up for hearing, Mr.T. Bala Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that as the matter pertains to^the engineering admission for the year 2016-17, the cause in the writ petition does not survive for further adjudication and the matter has become infructuous.

¶32

¶33

Considering the above submission, the Writ

¶34

Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be^no order as to costs.

¶35

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this

¶36

Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶37

SD/- K. J. RAJA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR f SECTION OFFICER

¶38

//TRUE COPY//

¶39

SECTION To. 1. One CC to SRI T BALA MOHAN REDDY Advocate [OPUCl 2. [OUT? ^\GHER education. High Court of Andhra Pradesh 3. ^ SUDESH ANAND, SC FOR APHERMC fOPUCl 4. 5. Thrle Co’ccples REDDY, SC FOR AlCTE [OPUcj Madhu MBT

alJM

HIGH COURT

DATED: 05/01/2024

ORDER

WP.No.22903 of 2016

DISMISSING THE WP AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS

Balaji Institute of Technology and Science, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balaji Institute of Technology and Science, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vanhya Jayaramudu Naik. Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh.

Aditya College of Engineering and Technology Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

A.Vinod and 2 Ors. Vs Commr. of Fisheries and 3 Ors.

Sri Koviri Mark Vs the State of Ap

Sarada B.PEd College Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Annamacharya Institute of Tech and Sciences,and 6 Vs State of Ap,Prl.Scy,T.E,Hyd,and 4