A writ petition seeking admission to an LL.B. three-year course per a provisional allotment letter was dismissed as infructuous after counsel stated the cause no longer survived.
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 :: AMARAVATII
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR ^
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION NO: 42161 OF 2017
Between:
Shaik Pardhu, S/o Shak Chennaiah, aged about 29 years,RioDoor.No.10- 15-44/13, S.B.I. Colony, Santhinagar, Kavali, S.P.S.R Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh State. Vs
...PETITIONER^.
AND
...RESPONDENTS
v...
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 an appropriate writ or direction or order, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the 3rd respondent to admit the petitioner into Legal Education Programme in LL.B. Three Years Course in 3rd respondent college as per the provisional allotment letter of the 2nd respondentdated 27.10.2017 as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and in violation of Articles14oftheConstitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to admit the petitioner into Legal Education Programme in LL.B. Three Years Course in 3rd respondent college for the academic year 2017-18.
LA. NO: 1 OF 2017fWPMP. NO: 52286 OF 2017)
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 3rd respondent to reserve one seat for the petitioner in Legal Education Programme in LL.B. ^hree Years Course in 3rd respondent college for the academic year 2017-18.
Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI. K SANDEEP
Counsel for the Respondents 1 & 2 : GP FOR EDUCATION'^
Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : SRI P SRIDHAR REDDY
The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE V. SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION No.42161 of 2017
ORDER:
Sri K. Sandeep, learned counsel representing the learned
counsel for the petitioner, informed this Court thatthecausein the Writ Petition does not survive and the matter has become infructuous. Hence, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.
- Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. ■
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if anyinthe Writ Petition, shall stand closed.
SD/- M.PRABHAKARA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
5
SECTION OFFICER
To,
..i'
Madhu
a0R)
HIGH COURT
DATED:05/02/2024
ORDER
WP.No.42161 of 2017
DISMISSING THE WP AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shaik Pardhu
The State of Andhra Pradesh (Principal Secretary, Education Department)
The Secretary, A.P. State Council for Higher Education
The Principal, V.R. Law College, Nellore
V.Sujatha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
