Dismissed

Mohammed Vaziruddin Educational Society v. All India Council for Technical Education

Telangana HC29 Apr 2013WP/40069/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed AICTE to consider petitioners' applications for institution approval within one week despite prior compliance lapses. The main writ petition was disposed of on merits, rendering the subsequent writ appeal infructuous and dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to consider petitioners' application within one week; main petition disposed of on merits; writ appeal dismissed as infructuous.

Mohammed Vaziruddin Educational Society Vs All… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI N.V. RAMANA AND

¶2

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶3

Writ Appeal No. 52 of 2013 and Writ Petition No. 40069 of 2012

¶4

DATED:29-04-2013

¶5

Writ Appeal No. 91 of 2013

¶6

Between:

¶7

The All India Council for Technical Education, Indira Gandhi Sport Complex, I.P Estate, New Delhi, rep., by its Secretary and another

¶8

… Appellants

¶9

Mohammed Vaziruddin and four others

¶10

… Respondents

¶11

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI N.V. RAMANA AND

¶12

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶13

Writ Appeal No. 52 of 2013 and Writ Petition No. 40069 of 2012

¶14

COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Sri N.V. Ramana, ACJ)

¶15

The writ appeal is directed against the interlocutory orders passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 40069 of 2012. When the writ appeal came up for admission for the first time on 24-01-2013, this Court felt it appropriate to dispose of the main writ petition itself. Therefore, the writ appeal as well as the writ petition are listed, and both are being disposed of by this common judgment.

¶16

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the writ petition.

¶17

The petitioners filed the writ petition to declare the action of the 1^st respondent in issuing order dated 29-10-2012 in F.No.730-50374(E)/ET/2001 rejecting their request for extension of approval for the academic year 2012-2013. The learned single Judge by order dated 31-12-2012 directed that the 1^st respondent shall open the Portal of the 2^nd , 3^rd and 4^th petitioners’ institution for the limited purpose of enabling them to put any application through online for reduction of strength/closure. The learned single Judge also directed that no steps shall be taken thereon until further orders and made it clear that mere opening of the portal shall not create or confer any right upon the petitioners. Questioning the same, the respondents filed the present

¶18

writ appeal.

¶19

On 24-01-2013 when the matter was listed, this Court directed the petitioners to submit their application either through web site or to send the hard copy of the said application to the regional department by speed post and after receiving the same, the appellants were directed to consider the application and file a report before this Court.

¶20

On 07-02-2013 this Court directed the petitioners to apply afresh in the matter on or before 10-02-2013 to the appellants and the appellants were in turn directed to deal with the said applications as directed earlier. This Court observed that consideration of such applications would be subject to the result of the orders to be passed by this Court.

¶21

On 25-04-2013, learned counsel for the writ petitioners stated that the order of this Court dated 24-01-2013 was not complied with and the respondents have not filed report before this Court. Learned counsel for the respondents stated that the applications of the writ petitioners have been sent by registered post, but he has no instructions in the matter about consideration part thereof.

¶22

Today, learned Standing Counsel for AICTE stated that the petitioners have not submitted any application to the appellants. Hence, the question of consideration of their application does not arise. However, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners filed the application on 08-02-2013 itself and produced postal receipt before us. He also submitted that they have submitted their application through E-mail also.

¶23

It is thus clear that the petitioners submitted application before 10-02-2013 as directed by this Court i.e., on 08-02-2013. In the circumstances, we direct the respondents – AICTE to consider the application of the petitioners within one week from today and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶24

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶25

In view of disposal of the writ petition on merits, the cause in the writ appeal which is filed questioning in the interim order passed in the writ petition, does not survive and, therefore, the writ appeal is dismissed as having become infructuous. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the writ petition and the writ appeal also stand dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶26

N.V. RAMANA, ACJ

¶27

VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J

¶28

29^th April, 2013 ks

Mohammed Vaziruddin Educational Society v. All India Council for Technical Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Vaziruddin Educational Society v. All India Council for Technical Education

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

J.Venkata Rao, S/o Venkateswarlu, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by the

The Selection Grade Secretary, Vs Ch. Rama Sai Baba

S.Sahadeva Reddy, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

All India Council for Technical Education Vs Mohammed Vaziruddin Educational Society

Y.Lakshmi Narasimha Reddy, S/O Late Sri Y.Veera Reddy, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by

Forum for Better Living, Vs The State of A.P. Rep. by its Chief Secretary