The court closed the writ petition challenging the non-minority classification of the petitioner institution, noting existing interim orders rendered further proceedings unnecessary.
The Writ Petition is closed with no order as to costs; all miscellaneous petitions stand closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.10532 of 2008
ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for School Education for respondents.
2. This Writ Petition was filed challenging the action of the respondents treating the petitioner minority institution as nonminority institution and not permitting the petitioner institution to conduct the admissions counseling in the light of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. 3. This Court, by order dated 02.05.2008, directed the fourth respondent Convenor not to allot any candidate to the petitioner institution and the petitioner institution was permitted to grant admission following the procedure in G.O.Ms.No.1, Minorities Welfare Department, dated 16.01.2004.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the said interim order, no further orders are necessary in the Writ Petition.
5. Recording the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Writ Petition is closed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J
Date: 03.12.2014 TJMR
1 issue framed by the court
Whether any further orders are necessary in the Writ Petition considering existing interim orders.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner minor institution
School Education Department (Covenor)
A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
