Disposed

Sri Padmavathi Venkateshwara Medical Science v. The Government of A.P rep.by its

Telangana HC27 Feb 2013WP/119/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In writ petitions seeking education institute recognition, the High Court directed the respondents to re-examine the petitioners' applications after receipt of a compliance report within four weeks, noting a lapse in communication but acknowledging the 2012 inspection deficiencies.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioners to submit a compliance report within four weeks; respondent must examine and order within four weeks thereafter.

Sri Padmavathi Venkateshwara Medical Science Vs… — Education and Admissions | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION Nos.106, 118 & 119 of 2013

¶3

COMMON ORDER:

¶4

The subject-matter of these writ petitions is one and the same. Hence, they are disposed of by this common order.

¶5

The petitioners submitted applications before the

¶6

2^nd respondent in the year 2009, seeking recognition to establish an institute to impart education in paramedical courses. The grievance of the petitioners is that though several years have elapsed, the 2^nd respondent did not conduct inspection, nor has it accorded recognition.

¶7

On behalf of the respondents, it is represented that the inspection was conducted within the stipulated time in the year 2012 and since several deficiencies were noticed, recognition was not granted. It is also stated that the Government issued several orders thereafter amending the procedure.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents.

¶9

The petitioners did not receive any communication, ever since they submitted applications, in the year 2009. Their grievance cannot be said to be without any basis. However, the respondents have conducted inspection in the year 2012 itself. Though there is some lapse on their part in communicating the result of inspection, at least now they have communicated the report of inspection in the year 2012. If the petitioners comply with the defects pointed out in the

¶10

inspection report and conforms to the standards that are prescribed as of now, the 2^nd respondent can be required to examine the applications, afresh.

¶11

Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that it shall be open to the petitioners to submit a report of compliance as per the requirements stipulated by the Government from time to time within four weeks from today. On submission of the compliance report, the 2^nd respondent shall examine the same once again and pass appropriate orders within four weeks thereafter.

¶12

The miscellaneous petitions filed in these writ petitions shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶13

_______ _______________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J

¶14

Dt.27-02-2013

¶15

¶16

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY

¶17

WRIT PETITION No.4137 OF 2013

¶18

Date:11.02.2013

¶19

Sri Padmavathi Venkateshwara Medical Science v. The Government of A.P rep.by its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Padmavathi Venkateshwara Medical Science v. The Government of A.P rep.by its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. Suvarna Bhoomi Developers (P) Ltd, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Guduru.Tulasi, Vs The State Board of Technical Education

Sri O. Malyadri Vs The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

M/S Madhu Transport, Vs The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology

Sri.Ch.Raja Reddy Vs The Prl.Secretary to Government

Chakka Madhusudhan Rao, Vs Raghava Rao