Disposed

Gayathri Degree College, Peddapally Village, and v. A.P. State Council for Higher Education, Masab Tank

Telangana HC22 Nov 2010WP/7470/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition challenging the reconsideration of rejected proposals for establishing Degree Colleges. It directed the respondents not to consider such applications without proper notification of the village as required by law.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondents not to consider any application for establishing Degree Colleges in Peddapally Mandal without proper notification issued as required under Section 21 of the A.P. Education Act

Gayathri Degree College, Peddapally Village, and… — Education and Admissions | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU

¶2

Writ Petition No.7470 of 2006

¶3

Date: 22.11.2010

¶4

Between: Gayathri Degree College …Petitioner And A.P. State Council for Higher Education, Masab Tank, Hyderabad, Rep.by its Secretary and another. … Respondents

¶5

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU

¶6

Writ Petition No.7470 of 2006

¶7

ORDER:

¶8

This writ petition is filed seeking Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in seeking to consider the cases of those applicants, who made applications for grant of permission for establishing Degree Colleges in Peddapally Mandal of Karimnagar District, for the academic year 2005-06 pursuant to the resolution, dated 6.2.2006, whose cases have already been rejected, as arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction.

¶9

2. This Court, while admitting the writ petition, in W.P.M.P.No.9580 of 2006, dated 17.4.2006, passed the following

¶10

order:

¶11

“Unless the need to establish a new College is notified for the academic year 2006-2007, consideration of the applications which were rejected on proposal of sanction of New Colleges for the academic year 2005-2006, may not arise afresh. In view of the same, the process of consideration of the pending cases as per the resolution of the State Council of Higher Education with regard to item No.4.08 may go on, but no permission should be granted to the Colleges whose proposals were already rejected, until further orders. Post the WPMP for hearing on filing the counter affidavit by the State Council of Higher Education and other affected parties.”

¶12

The said order is still subsisting.

¶13

3. Now, a counter affidavit is filed by the 1^st respondent stating that based on the representations made by the applicants to start Degree Colleges for the academic year 2005-2006, which were already rejected or not considered due to minor deficiencies,

¶14

requested the respondent to reconsider the same for the academic year 2006-2007 and in that background, 66^th Meeting was convened on 6.2.2006 in the office of the 1^st respondent and two resolutions were passed, being item No.4.08 and 4.09. Item No.4.08 of the said resolution reads as under:

¶15

“Item No.4.08

¶16

Consideration of pending and rejected proposals 2005-06 for sanctioning New private Unaided Degree Colleges for the Academic year 2006-07 – Representations of managements and public representatives – Regarding.”

¶17

However, in view of the interim order, dated 17.4.2006, passed by this Court, as of today the resolution, dated 6.2.2006, was not given effect to.

¶18

4. Sri C. Sudesh Anand, learned counsel for the 1^st respondent, states that not only the academic year 2006-2007 lapsed, but also for the subsequent academic years, Peddapally village was not notified for the purpose of considering the applications for establishment of new Degree Colleges as required under Section 21 of the A.P. Education Act, 1982 (for brevity “the Act”). However, learned counsel for the petitioner states that if the same is to be notified for Peddapally village as required under Section 21 of the Act, the respondent may do so after conducting survey in accordance with law.

¶19

5. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1^st respondent not to consider any application for establishing Degree Colleges in Peddapally Mandal of Karimnagar District without there being proper notification issued as required under Section 21 of the A.P. Education Act, 1982. No order as to costs.

¶20

_______________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 22.11.2010. Msr

¶21

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU

¶22

Writ Petition No.7470 of 2006

¶23

22.11.2010

¶24

(Msr)

Gayathri Degree College, Peddapally Village, and v. A.P. State Council for Higher Education, Masab Tank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gayathri Degree College, Peddapally Village, and v. A.P. State Council for Higher Education, Masab Tank

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

M/s. Ratna Cable Network Through its proprietor, Vs The Post Master, Peddapalli, H.O

Ch.Madhusudna Rao Vs The Commissioner and Diretor of Settlements

N.T.R.Nagar Phase-Ii Weaker Section Welfare Vs The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District

M/s. Sri Sai Rocks, Vs The District Collector

Dr.Bhagyavati, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Tirupathi Raghunath Vs Tirupathi Shankar