Disposed

Panjagala Susmitha, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC17 Jun 2016WP/28235/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad disposed of multiple writ petitions regarding admission to unaided medical/dental courses. Relying on an interim order previously issued in a related batch of cases requiring a bank guarantee, the court directed the respondents to admit the petitioners subject to the furnishing of the requisite bank guarantee and an undertaking to renew it annually.

What did the court decide?

Directors admitted to the first year Medical/Dental Course subject to furnishing a renewable bank guarantee for the tuition fee and providing a corresponding undertaking within two weeks.

Panjagala Susmitha, Vs The State of Telangana — Education and Admissions | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶2

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶3

WRIT PETITION Nos. 28135, 28149, 28227, 28235, 28239, 28392 and 29360 of 2015

¶4

Date: 17.06.2016

¶5

W.P.No.28135 of 2015

¶6

Between:

¶7

Vemula Vishwa Sai Sandeep

¶8

… Petitioner

¶9

And

¶10

The State of Telangana, rep., by its Principal Secretary, Health, Medical & Family Welfare (C1) Department, Hyderabad & others.

¶11

… Respondents

¶12

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND

¶13

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶14

WRIT PETITION Nos. 28135, 28149, 28227, 28235, 28239, 28392 and 29360 of 2015

¶15

ORDER: (per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Dilip B. Bhosale)

¶16

Heard Sri Ch. Ravinder with Smt. K. Rajitha and Sri D. Kodandarami Reddy for the petitioners, and Sri Taddi Nageswara Rao for respondent No.3. None appears for the contesting respondent No.5.

¶17

We have disposed of W.P.No.32513 of 2015 and batch, wherein almost similar prayer was made, vide order, dated 17.06.2016. Insofar as the instant writ petitions are concerned, the petitioners had not furnished bank guarantee for Rs.36 lakhs towards the four years tuition fee and have approached this Court by way of the instant writ petitions. On 01.09.2015, 02.09.2015 and 09.09.2015, in miscellaneous petitions the following interim order was passed:

¶18

“When the matter is called for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner(s) has placed on record Lr.No.7086/EA1/MBBS/BDS/2015, dated 29.08.2015, addressed to the Convener, MCET-AC-2015, extending the last date for joining into unaided Non-Minority Medical and Dental Colleges under ‘B’ category up to 05:00 PM on 07.09.2015.

¶19

Further, this Court in similar matters has already issued interim directions.

¶20

In that view of the matter, there shall be a direction to the respondents to admit the petitioner(s) into 1^st year Medical/Dental Course for the Academic Year 2015-16 as per the provisional admission order, on payment of tuition fee and also on furnishing

¶21

bank guarantee for a sum equivalent to the tuition fee for one year, on or before 07.09.2015, pending further orders.

¶22

Post the writ petition after four weeks.”

¶23

In view of the interim order, the petitioners have furnished bank guarantee for Rs.9 lakhs for the academic year 2015-16. In view thereof and having considered the order passed in a batch of writ petitions, we are satisfied that these writ petitions can be disposed of in terms of the interim order, dated 01.09.2015, 02.09.2015 and 09.09.2015. Order accordingly. However, we make it clear that the petitioners shall renew the bank guarantee for Rs.9 lakhs before expiry of the same and keep it alive for every succeeding year and shall also furnish an undertaking to that effect to this Court within a period of two weeks from today with an advance copy thereof to the respondents.”

¶24

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶25

_______________________ DILIP B.BHOSALE, ACJ __________________ P. NAVEEN RAO, J Date: 17.06.2016 ES

Panjagala Susmitha, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Panjagala Susmitha, v. The State of Telangana

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

Smt.v.Reddamma, Vs Smt.a.Gangulamma

St. Marys College of Engineering and Technology Vs The Union of India

Sri Sai Residency Flat Owners Welfare Association Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by Principal

Matli Vamshi Reddy, Vs The State of Telangvao Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Usha Tejaswi Gangireddy, Vs The State of Telangana Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Peddisetty Nihitha, Vs The State of Telangana Rep. by its Principal Secretary