Putte Gowda H C Vs the State of Ap

Putte Gowda H C, S/o. Chikkamade Gowda, Aged about⁵⁰ years , R/o. Hullahalli Village, Agasana pura post, Kasabahobli, Malalavalli Mandya District, Karnataka-571430

¶11

...Petitioner

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Department of Higher Education, Secretariat, Velagapudi.Amaravati

¶14

Guntur District.

¶15

The Registrar, The Rayalaseema University, Administrative Office, Q3F6 + 362, Nandyala Road, Pasupula, Kurnool District-518007.

¶16

The ViceChancellor, The Rayalaseema University, Administrative Office, Q3F6 + 362, Nandyala Road, Pasupula Kurnool District518007.

¶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, Order or Direction more particularly oneⁱⁿ nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd and 3rd Respondents in not permitting the petitioner to complete the Doctorate in Philosophy (Ph.D)

¶19

Cours6 purportedly on the grounds of non-payment of course fee/extension fee and/or non submission of DCMS/Thesis in time as wholly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, contrary to Principles of Natural Justice besides being violative of Article 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to complete the Ph.D. Course by condoning the delay for payment fee and by providing one time opportunity to complete his respective Course.

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 709!^

¶21

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 2nd and 3rd respondents to permit the petitioner to complete the Ph.D. Course by condoning the delay for payment fee for by providing one time opportunity to complete his respective Course pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SHAIK MEERAVALI REPRESENTING SRI RACHURI LAKSHMIKAR

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3: M/S. N.VIJAYASHANTI (SC FOR RAYALASEEMA UNIVERSITY)

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION The Court made the following order:

¶25

(3328]

¶26

APHC010266062025

¶27

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH 0>:0 AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶28

TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶29

PRESENT

¶30

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

¶31

WRIT PETITION NO: 15213/2025

¶32

Between;

¶33

1.PUTTE GOWDA H C, S/0. CHIKKAMADE GOWDA. AGED ABOUT⁵⁰ YEARS R/0. HULLAHALLI VILLAGE, AGASANA PURA POST, KASABAHOBLI, MALALAVALLI, MANDYA DISTRICT, KARNATAKA571430

¶34

...PETITIONER

¶35

AND

¶36

1.THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI,AMARAVATI GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶37

2.THE REGISTRAR, THE RAYALASEEMA UNIVERSITY, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, Q3F6 PLUS 362, NANDYALA ROAD, PASUPULA, KURNOOL DISTRICT-518007.

¶38

3.THE VICECHANCELLOR, THE RAYALASEEMA UNIVERSITY, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, Q3F6 PLUS 362, NANDYALA ROAD, PASUPULA, KURNOOL DISTRICT-518007.

¶39

...RESPONDENT(S);

¶40

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶41

1.RACHURI LAKSHMIKAR

¶42

Counsel for the Respondent{S);

¶43

1.N.VIJAYASHANTI

¶44

2.GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

w

2

m .

The Court made the following:

¶49

ORAL ORDER:

¶50

Heard Sri Shaik Meeravalli, learned Counsel representing Sri Rachuri Lakshmikar, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner, Ms. P. Lakshmi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Education and Smt. Nimmagadda Vijaya Shanti, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos.2^&3.

¶51

The present Writ Petition is filed seeking following^relief;

¶52

. .pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2"'^ and 3'"^ Respondentsⁱⁿ not permitting the petitioner to complete the Doctorate in Philosophy (Ph.D) Course purportedly on the grounds of non-payment of course fee/extension fee and/or non submission of DCMS/Thesis in time as wholly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, contrary to Principles of Natural Justice besides being violative of Article 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to complete the Ph.D. Course by condoning the delay for payment fee and by providing one time opportunity to complete his respective Course and to pass... ”

¶53

Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has placed reliance on the Order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court^{inW.P.No.13688of} 2024 dated 12.08.2024. On verification of the Order passed by the learned Single judge in W.P.No.13688 of 2024 dated 12.08.2024, it appears that the learned Single Judge has placed reliance on an earlier Order passed by this Court in W.P.No.28977 of 2023 dated 04.04.2024.

¶54

In this view of the matter, this Court is of the view^{thatitwouldbeuseful} to refer to the Order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.28977 of 2023, since this Order, which has been referred to in the subsequent Writ

¶55

3

¶56

Petitions, has been retied on for granting relief in the subsequent Writ

¶57

Petitions.

¶58

Hence, this Court deems it appropriate to extract the relevant portion of the learned Single Judge’s Order in W.P.No.28977 of 2023 dated 04.04.2024:

¶59

“11. It is also evident from the material available on record that basing on the resolutions of the various committees and approvals of the Executive Committee,^the University is continuing the research program and is confined to tire resolutions of the EC and the EC has instructed the University to close the research program after completing the pending formalities for the research scholars whose research admissions were in live before 30.04.2024. The only ground on which petitioners’ case was rejected is that they have not paid the fees as they are not aware in view of the fact that the last date for payment of fees was uploaded only in the website.

¶60

In view of the fact that the respondent University has passed a resolution and thereafter issued various circulars for closure of the Ph.D. program before 30.04.2024, instead of going into merits of the case, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition by directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners by receiving the payment of the^research fee duly condoning the delay as a one time opportunity^to the petitioners, within a period of ten (10) days from^the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter, the petitioners may be allowed to complete their Ph.D. program in accordance with law.”

¶61

Having regard to these facts, there shall be a direction to the Official Respondents to allow the Writ Petitioner to deposit the required fee within a period of ten (10) days in terms of the Order passed by this Court dated 04.04.2024 in W.P.No.28977 of 2023. It is needless to state that the Official Respondents shall adhere to the directions passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.28977 of 2023 dated 04.04.2024.

¶62

4

¶63

This Court has already directed the Respondent University to grant six (6) months time to the Ph.D scholars to enable^{themtosubmitPh.Dthesis.} Accordingly, the Respondent University shall permit^{thepresentWritPetitioner} to submit his Ph.D thesis within a period of six (6)^{monthsfromtodayi.e.,on} or before 31.01.2026.

¶64

With these observations and directions, the Writ Petition stands allowed. No order as to costs. 9. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in^{termsofthisorder.}

¶65

Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

-JY %

SECTION OFFICER

To,