Disposed

Barri Sai Divya v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC21 Jun 2016WP/28390/2015

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, upholding interim orders directing reservation and fee payment, noting the necessity of bank guarantees.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to admit petitioner into medical/dental course subject to fee payment and bank guarantee renewal.

Barri Sai Divya 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. 27904, 27907, 27911, 27913, 27914, 27918, 27919, 27921, 27928, 27932, 27962, 28192, 28256, 28345, 28351, 28355, 28356, 28361, 28372, 28374, 28375, 28377, 28380, 28388, 28390, 28412, 28796, 29154 and 29235 of 2015

¶4

Date: 21.06.2016

¶5

W.P.No.27904 of 2015 Between:

¶6

Maryala Vilasni M

¶7

… Petitioner

¶8

And

¶9

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

¶10

… Respondents

¶11

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

¶12

¶13

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

¶14

Heard Sri Ch. Ravinder with Sri Y. Neelakanta Reddy, Smt. K. Rajitha,

¶15

Sri Y. Nagi Reddy, Sri J. Kanakaiah, Sri Ramakrishna Pativada and Sri Suresh Kumar Potturi for the petitioners, and Sri Taddi Nageswara Rao for respondent No.3. None appears for the contesting respondent No.5.

¶16

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 they have approached this Court by way of the instant writ petitions. On 31.08.2015, 01.09.2015, 02.09.2015, 04.09.2015 and 08.09.2015, in miscellaneous petitions the following interim order was passed:

¶17

“When the matter is called for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner 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.

¶18

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

¶19

In that view of the matter, there shall be a direction to the respondents to admit the petitioner 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 bank guarantee for a sum equivalent to the tuition fee for one year, on or before 07.09.2015, pending further orders.

¶20

Post the writ petition after four weeks.”

¶21

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 31.08.2015, 01.09.2015, 02.09.2015, 04.09.2015 and 08.09.2015. 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.

¶22

Learned counsel for the parties have agreed for this order subject to outcome of W.P.No.27776 of 2015 filed by the Telangana Private Medical and Dental College Managements Association, Hyderabad. It is open to the petitioners in these writ petitions to seek intervention in the said writ petition, if they so desired and advised.

¶23

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

¶24

_______________________ DILIP B.BHOSALE, ACJ

¶25

__________________ P.

¶26

NAVEEN RAO, J

¶27

Date: 21.06.2016

¶28

Kvni

Barri Sai Divya v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Barri Sai Divya v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.S. Krishna, Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater

M. Musalaiah, Vs Union of India

Thippani Rajaiah Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

Tada Ashitha Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana

Kumari a. Meghana, Vs The State of Telangana

Bellamkonda Akshay Kumar Vs The State of Telagana Rep. by its Principal Secretary