Dismissed

Sathyabama Institute of v. Union of India Rep.by Its

Madras HC1 Aug 2019WP/15094/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging notifications regarding 2003-2004 admissions and interfering with the petitioner university's rights, counsel withdrew the petition noting nothing survived. The Court dismissed the matter as infructuous and closed connected miscellaneous petitions with no costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition and connected Miscellaneous Petitions dismissed as infructuous and closed.

Sathyabama Institute of Vs Union of India Rep.by Its — Education and Admissions | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED :01.08.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶5

W.P.No.15094 of 2003

¶6

and

¶7

WMP.Nos.18925 to 18927 of 2003 and 3063 of 2004

¶8

Sathyabama Institute of Science and Technology Deemed University, Represented by its Campus at Jeppiar Nagar, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai- 600 119. .. Petitioner vs 1. Union of India Represented by Secretary to Government Ministry of Human Resources Development, Department of Science and Higher Education, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi- 110 001. 2. University Grants Commission, Bhadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110 002, Represented by its Secretary 3. Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) Represented by its Secretary A.I.E.E.E. 2003 Unit No.17-B Indira Prastha Estate New Delhi 110 002 4. The Chariman Central Counselling Board -2003 Ministry of Human Resources Development Government of India, CCB Secretariat Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technology, Allahabad 211 004. .. Respondents

¶9

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶10

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, or any other order or direction in the nature of a writ, to call for the records relating to the notification of the 3^rd respondent dated 20.12.2002 published in the Hindu and the consequential letter issued by the fourth respondent in No.18/MNNIT/CCB/2003, dated 29.04.2003 and quash the same in so far as it relates to the petitioner's Deemed University is concerned and forbearing the respondents 1 to 4 from interfering with the right of admission of the students of the petitioner Deemed University viz. Sathyabama Institute of Science and Technology Deemed University, at Jeppiar Nagar, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai 600 119.

¶11

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made an endorsement which reads as follows:

¶12

“ The matter relates to 2003-2004 admission to the University. At this time it appears nothing survives. However with liberty to file fresh case if anything arise in future, withdraws the petition.”

¶13

In view of the endorsement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶14

Assistant Registrar(CS-III)

¶15

True Copy

¶16

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶17

mrn

¶18

¶19

Union of India

¶20

Represented by Secretary to Government Ministry of Human Resources Development, Department of Science and Higher Education, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi- 110 001.

¶21

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶22

University Grants Commission, Bhadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110 002, Represented by its Secretary 3. Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) Represented by its Secretary A.I.E.E.E. 2003 Unit No.17-B Indira Prastha Estate New Delhi 110 002

¶23

The Chariman Central Counselling Board -2003 Ministry of Human Resources Development Government of India, CCB Secretariat Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technology, Allahabad 211 004.

¶24

W.P.No.15094 of 2003 and WMP.Nos.18925 to 18927 of 2003 and 3063 of 2004 PP(CO) SP(31/10/2019)

¶25

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Sathyabama Institute of v. Union of India Rep.by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sathyabama Institute of v. Union of India Rep.by Its

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

R. Elumalai Vs He District Collector

M/S.Ploy Bags and Printers, Vs the Union Government of

P.a.Francis Vs Tamil Nadu Small Industries

A.Punniakodi Vs the Special Commissioner and

Shanmugha Arts,Science Vs Union of India Rep.by Secrty.

Vellore Institute of Vs Union of India