Dismissed

G.v.Sambi Reddy v. The Government of India

Telangana HC8 Oct 2013WP/29123/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, President of an education society, alleged that respondents violated examination guidelines and accepted fake certificates. The Court held that the petitioner failed to exhaust alternative remedies by approaching the concerned authorities first. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, though liberty was granted to approach the authorities.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner given liberty to approach respondent Nos.1 to 3 for redressal before approaching the Court again.

G.v.Sambi Reddy Vs The Government of India — Education and Admissions | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.29123 of 2013

¶2

Date: 08.10.2013

¶3

Between:

¶4

G.V.Sambi Reddy .. Petitioner and The Government of India, represented by its Joint Director, National Institute of Open School, New Delhi and others .. Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Smt. Y.Anupama Devi Counsel for respondents:

¶5

.. Respondents

¶6

ORDER:

¶7

The petitioner, President of an education society, filed this writ petition with the grievance that respondent Nos.4 and 5 have not been following the guidelines prescribed by the National Institute of Open School in the matter of conducting examinations and fixing the examination centers etc.,. The petitioner also alleged that respondent Nos.4 and 5 have been accepting the fake certificates for admissions into the educational institutions. The petitioner, therefore, desires that respondent Nos.1 to 3 conduct an enquiry into all the above issues and take appropriate action against respondent Nos.4 and 5.

¶8

At the hearing, Smt.Y.Anupama Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner, has fairly conceded that before filing this writ petition, his client has not approached respondent Nos.1 to 3 for ventilation of his grievances. The law is well settled that before approaching the High Court for issue of a mandamus, the aggrieved party has to first approach the concerned demanding justice (See Kamini Kumar Das Choudhary v. State of West Benga l^[1] and Amrit Lal v. Collector Central Excise Central Revenue^[2] ) . As the petitioner has not followed this procedure, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition for adjudication on merits at this stage. The petitioner is, however, given liberty to approach respondent Nos.1 to 3 for streamlining the process and for taking appropriate action against respondent Nos.4 and 5. If the petitioner’s grievances are not redressed by respondent Nos.1 to 3, he will then be entitled to approach this Court.

¶9

Subject to the liberty given as above, the Writ Petition is dismissed.

¶10

As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.36175 of 2013 filed by the petitioner for interim relief shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶11

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

¶12

08^th October, 2013 GHN

¶13

[1] AIR 1972 SC 2060

¶14

[2] AIR 1975 SC 538

G.v.Sambi Reddy v. The Government of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.v.Sambi Reddy v. The Government of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Uddutta Satyanarayana S/o. Venkaiah, Vs The Thasildhar

Ganta Lakshmi Devi W/o. Late Sorry Reddy, Vs The District Collector, Nalgonda District.

T. Bheemamma Vs The Asst Director

M. Bhupathi Reddy Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal

M/s. Siddardha Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Vs Sri.Ch.v.v.S.Prasad

Dondapati Laxmaiah Vs The District Collector, Khammam.