Dismissed

Secy, Srinivasa Educational Society, Prakasam Dist and Anr. v. Spl Chief Secy, Higher EDUCATION(TE/A2) Dept, Hyderabad and 3

Andhra Pradesh HC7 Jan 2024WP/24340/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A private engineering college challenged the State-notified B.Tech fee of Rs.50,600/- per student per annum seeking Rs.69,800/-. The Court held that as the writ concerned fee fixation for academic year 2016-2017, already covered by interim arrangements, the cause did not survive adjudication.

What the court decided

AI extract

Secy, Srinivasa Educational Society… — Education and Admissions | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 24340 OF 2016

¶7

Between:

¶8

Srinivasa Educational Society, a Society Registered under Societies Registration Act, Having its office at D. No. 37-1-407/70A, 3rd Cross Road, 2nd Lane, Bhagyanagar, Ongole, Prakasham District rep. Secretary Sri M. Sridhar S/o Late Srinivasulu, aged about 45 years, R/o Bhagyanagar, Second Lane, Ongole, Prakasam

¶9

PACE Institute of Technology and Sciences, NH-5, Near Vallurama Temple, Ongole, Prakasam District, being represented by its Correspondent Sri M. Sridhar S/o Late Srinivasulu, aged about 45 years, R/o Bhagyanagar, Second Lane, Ongole, Prakasam.

¶10

...PETITIONER(S)

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Higher Education (TE/A2) Department represented by its Special Chief Secretary to Government Secretariat Hyderabad.

¶13

The Andhra Pradesh Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee, HACA Bhavan Ground Floor, 0pp. Assembly and Adj. All India Radio, Hyderabad500 004

¶14

The Convenor- APEAMCET- 2016 [Admissions], JNTU, Kakinada, C/o. Andhra Pradesh State Council of Higher Education. lEI New Building

¶15

Vishweswarayya Bhavan, Khairtabad, Hyderabad

¶16

„ 4. Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, represented by Its Registrar Kakinada, Andhra Pradesh.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

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 petition, order or direction, one more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring GO Ms. No. 39 dt. 24-06-2016 issued by the 1 respondent notifying a fee of Rs. 50,600/- per student per annum in respect of the under-graduate engineering B. Tech course imparted by the petitioner for the block period 2016-2017 to 2018-2019 purportedly on the

¶19

recommendations of the 2nd respondent as ultra vires, arbitrary and illegal, vitiated by perversity and irrational conclusions of the 2^^ respondent, being in violation of the law declared by this Hon’ble Court in 2013(3) ALD 572 and issue a consequential directions to the respondents to notify the fee at Rs. 69,800/-, per student per annum as proposed by the petitioner in its proposal dt. 27.1.2016 for the undergraduate engineering courses for the block period 2016-2017 to 2018-2019.

¶20

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2016fWPMP. NO: 30003 OF 201 fit

¶21

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 permit the petitioner to collect the fee of Rs. 69,800/- per student per annum for the undergraduate engineering courses pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRI. S. SRI RAM

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

¶24

Counsel for the Respondents No.2,3: SRI. C. SUDESH ANAND

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI. I. MADHU BABU,^SCFORJNTU

¶26

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶27

¶28

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶29

WRIT PETITION No.24340 of 2016

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226

¶32

of the Constitution of India seeking the following^relief:-

¶33

“...to issue a writ, order or direction one more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring G.O.Ms.No.39 dated 24.06.2016 issued by the 1st respondent notifying a fee of Rs.50,600/ - per student per annum in respect of the undergraduate engineering B.Tech course imparted by the petitioner for the block period 2016-2017 to 2018-2019 purportedly on the recommendations of the 2nd respondent as ultra vires, arbitrary and illegal, vitiated by perversity^and irrational conclusions of the 2nd respondent, beingⁱⁿ violation of the law declared by this Honourable Court in 2013(3) ALD 572 and issue consequential directions to the respondents to notify the fee at Rs.69,800/- per student per annum as proposed by the petitioner in^its proposal dt 27.1.2016 for the undergraduate engineering courses for the block period 2016-2017^to 2018-2019...”

¶34

When the matter came up for hearing on 27.07.2016,^this

¶35

Court passed the following interim order:

¶36

“There shall be interim direction that the Convener while giving admissions shall notify to the students about their impending liability to pay the differential amount, if any, depending^onthe result of the Writ Petition. In addition to the same, the petitioner-Managements are entitled to obtain an undertaking from each of the students to the same effect. ”

¶37

As the relief sought by the petitioner pertains to^feefixation

¶38

for the academic year 2016-2017 and even in view of^theinterim order passed by this Court on 27.07.2016, this Court is of the

¶39

¶40

opinion that the cause in the writ petition does not^survivefor further adjudication.

¶41

Accordingly, this writ petition is disrriissed as infructuous.

¶42

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶43

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any.

¶44

shall also stand closed.

SD/- U. SRIDEVI

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

One CC to SRI. S. SRI RAM Advocate [OPUC]

¶51

One CC to SRI. C. SUDESH ANAND Advocate [OPUC]

¶52

TwoCCsto GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION, High Court of Andhra^Pradesh. [OUT]

¶53

One CC to SRI. I. MADHU BABU, Advocate SC FOR JNTU [OPUC]

¶54

Three C.D.Copies nm ssb

APSavi^Ov

HIGH COURT

DATED:08/01/2024

ORDER

WP.No.24340 of 2016

'ScopiH y^PV

DISMISSING THE WP AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS

Secy, Srinivasa Educational Society, Prakasam Dist and Anr. v. Spl Chief Secy, Higher EDUCATION(TE/A2) Dept, Hyderabad and 3

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Secy, Srinivasa Educational Society, Prakasam Dist and Anr. v. Spl Chief Secy, Higher EDUCATION(TE/A2) Dept, Hyderabad and 3

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

B.Bose Pranadeep Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Mohammed Khwaja Illias Mohi Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

M/S Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. Vs the State of Ap