Petitioner challenged exclusion from A.P.ECET-2016 counseling. Court noted representation was already rejected on 15.06.2016, dismissing the writ petition as infructuous with no order as to costs.
None; writ petition dismissed as infructuous with no order as to costs.
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 C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No. 19008 of 2016
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Government Pleader for Higher Education.
The present Writ Petition came to be filed declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 4 in not acting upon the representation dated 09.06.2016 and orally informing the petitioner that it would not be possible to include the petitioner in web counseling process for Phase-I A.P.ECET-2016 admissions, as illegal and arbitrary.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner/College was granted approval and included in the counseling process of EAMCET 2016, it’s rejection in including the name of the college for A.P.ECET 2016 is totally illegal and improper. He placed on record the permissions accorded for running the EAMCET 2016.
Though various grounds are raised, the learned counsel for the petitioner restricts his prayer seeking a direction to the respondents to consider the representation made on 09.06.2016 at the earliest. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing it is brought to the notice of the Court that the representation of the petitioner was considered and rejected on 15.06.2016.
Hence, nothing survives for adjudication of the Writ Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
Dt:16.06.2016
GM
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition is maintainable after the representation was rejected on 15.06.2016 making the claim infructuous.
Petitioner
Government Pleader for Higher Education
C. Praveen Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
