Disposed

B.Bose Pranadeep v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC7 Jan 2024WP/363/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition filed under Article 226 concerning admission to the 5th Semester, the High Court directed the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner's representation dated 30.11.2023 to re-join studies within ten days, without adjudicating the merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 30.11.2023 and pass appropriate orders within 10 days.

B.Bose Pranadeep Vs the State of Andhra… — Education and Admissions | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.363 of 2024

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

¶5

“…to issue a Writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent Nos.2 to 5 in not considering the representation request dated 30.11.2023 of the petitioner to continue the studies to re-continue or re-join in 5^th Semester vide Roll No.12114020 (Self Supporting Course) Department of E.C.E in view of proceedings issued by the 5^th Respondent vide UCE18/EXAMS/B.TECH I SEM/Detain/2022 dated 01.12.2022 as illegal, arbitrary and colorable excise of power and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to Permit the petitioner to appear V-Semester examination and to continue further studies by considering the Petitioner representation dated 30.11.2023 and pass….”

¶6

Today when the matter came up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions urged in the Writ Petition, but, however limited his request to direct the respondent authorities to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 30.11.2023, requesting to re-continue his studies and permit to re-join in 5^th semester, without touching the merits of the case.

¶7

On the other hand, Mr.Butta Vijaya Bhaskar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2

¶8

¶9

to 5, submits that the respondent authorities agreed to consider the representation made by the petitioner, dated 30.11.2023 and will pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶10

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 to 5, instead of going into the merits of the case, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition directing the 2^nd respondent to consider the representation made by the petitioner dated 30.11.2023 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of ten (10) days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

¶11

Accordingly, with the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶12

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this

¶13

Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶14

______________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶15

Date : 08.01.2024 SRT

¶16

¶17

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶18

WRIT PETITION No.363 of 2024

¶19

Date : 08.01.2024

¶20

SRT

B.Bose Pranadeep v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Bose Pranadeep 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

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

Mohammed Khwaja Illias Mohi Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

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

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