Dismissed

Annamalai University v. University Grants Commission

Madras HC2 Dec 2022WP/2494/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Madras dismissed multiple writ petitions filed by Annamalai University and others challenging AICTE admission guidelines as infructuous because the relevant regulation had already come into force, rendering the relief sought unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions were dismissed as infructuous and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

Annamalai University Vs University Grants Commission — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.Nos.2494 to 2496, 15799 to 15801 of 2004

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED :02.12.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

W.P.Nos.2494 to 2496, 15799 to 15801 of 2004 and W.M.P.Nos.18755, 18756, 18758, 18759, 18761, 18762, 2833, 2004, 1213, 2828, 675 of 2004

¶7

W.P.No.2494 of 2004

¶8

Annamalai University Annamalai Nagar 608 002 Chidambaram, repd. by its Registrar ... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.University Grants Commission repd. By its Secretary Bahadursha Zafar Marg New Delhi 110 006

¶11

2.All India Council for Technical Education, repd. by its Adviser Indira Gandhi Sports Complex Indraprastha Estate New Delhi

¶12

3.Central Board of Secondary Education, repd. by its Secretary Indraprastha Estate

¶13

Page No.1 of 4

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

W.P.Nos.2494 to 2496, 15799 to 15801 of 2004

¶16

New Delhi

¶17

4.Union of India, repd. by Secretary to Government Government of India Dept. of Secondary Education and Higher Education Ministry of Human Resources Development, Shastri Bhavan New Delhi 110 001 ... Respondents

¶18

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records comprised in the proceedings / guidelines for common entrance test dated 28.10.2003 issued by the A.I.C.T.E. for admission to M.B.A. / M.C.A. and other programmes in the petitioner university and quash the same as ultra vires and unconstitutional and consequently forbear the respondents from in any manner seeking to interfere with the right of the petitioner to admit students, fix rationale fee structure etc. in respect of the various courses offered by the petitioner University in accordance with the Annamalai University Act and other statutory enactments in force.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sivasubramani WP.2494-2496/2004 WP.15799-15801/2004 : Mr.R.Parthasarathy For Respondents : Mr.P.R.Gopinathan for R1 in all W.Ps. Mr.G.Nagarajan for R3 Mr.J.Madhanagopal rao SPC for R4

¶20

Page No.2 of 4

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

W.P.Nos.2494 to 2496, 15799 to 15801 of 2004

¶23

Mr.B.Rabu Manohar, CGSC for R2 O R D E R

¶24

When the matter was taken up today for consideration, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in all the writ petitions submitted that now Regulation has come into force and the relief sought for by them has become infructuous.

¶25

2.In view of the above, these writ petitions are dismissed as infructuous. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.

¶26

02.12.2022

¶27

kas Index : yes / no Internet : yes / no Speaking / Non speaking

¶28

¶29

1.The Secretary University Grants Commission Bahadursha Zafar Marg New Delhi 110 006

¶30

Page No.3 of 4

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

W.P.Nos.2494 to 2496, 15799 to 15801 of 2004

¶33

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J. kas 2.The Adviser All India Council for Technical Education, Indira Gandhi Sports Complex Indraprastha Estate New Delhi 3.The Secretary Central Board of Secondary Education Indraprastha Estate New Delhi 4.The Secretary to Government Union of India Government of India Dept. of Secondary Education and Higher Education Ministry of Human Resources Development, Shastri Bhavan New Delhi 110 001

¶34

W.P.Nos.2494 to 2496, 15799 to 15801 of 2004 and W.M.P.Nos.18755, 18756, 18758, 18759, 18761, 18762, 2833, 2004, 1213, 2828, 675 of 2004

¶35

02.12.2022

¶36

Page No.4 of 4

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Annamalai University v. University Grants Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Annamalai University v. University Grants Commission

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

Mr. G. Shankar Vs The Deputy Director/Principal

Subhiksha Trading Services Ltd. Vs Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.

C.Thiruvengadam, Vs the Manager

R. Dakshinamurthy Vs Nitin Kumar Dhirajlal Gokal

M/S.Raymond Pharmaceuticals Vs Union of India

M.Ramathal Vs the Executive Engineer