Disposed

Keshav Memorial Technical Educational Society, v. The Convener

Telangana HC14 Jul 2017WP/23182/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge order in a writ petition challenging the exclusion of a college from EAMCET counselling. The court observed delays in disposing of a representation and directed the second respondent to act by a specified timeframe.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the second respondent to dispose of the pending representation on the inclusion of the petitioner-college in EAMCET counselling by 15.07.2017 evening.

Keshav Memorial Technical Educational Society, Vs… — Education and Admissions | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.23182 OF 2017

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, came to be filed seeking to declare the action of respondents 1 and 2 in not including the name of the second petitioner-Institution in the online counselling for EAMCET-2017 Admissions for the academic year 2017-2018 as illegal and arbitrary; to direct the third respondent to forthwith fix and notify a fee of Rs.35,000/- for the courses of the 2^nd petitioner-Institution for the academic year 2017-2018 and in the alternative to direct the respondents to permit the petitioners to undertake 100% admissions of the second petitioner-Institution with a fee of Rs.35,000/- for the courses of the second petitioner-Institution for the academic year 2017-2018.

¶4

Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

¶5

Pursuant to the orders passed by this Court in WP No.17505 of 2017 on 23.06.2017, the first petitioner herein made a representation to the authorities for inclusion of the name of the second petitioner-College in EAMCET Counselling for Engineering stream. It is stated that though the said representation was made on 24.06.2017, till date no orders are passed.

¶6

Sri A.Abhishek Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 to 3, submits that unless the orders are passed by the fourth respondent, they will not be in a position to include the name of the second petitioner in the EAMCET Counselling.

¶7

¶8

Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for Sri Tarun G.Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, at this stage, restricts his prayer, seeking a direction to the respondents to dispose of the representation dated 24.06.2017 submitted by the first petitioner seeking inclusion of name of the second petitioner-College in EAMCET Counselling.

¶9

In view of the facts in issue and since three weeks have elapsed from the date of submission of representation, the second respondent is directed to deal with the representation submitted by the first petitioner on 24.06.2017 and pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law, as early as possible, preferably by tomorrow i.e. 15.07.2017 evening.

¶10

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is di?sposed of.

¶11

Miscellaneous petitions pending in this writ petition, if any,

¶12

shall stand closed. No costs.

¶13

________________________ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J

¶14

14.07.2017 sur

Keshav Memorial Technical Educational Society, v. The Convener

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Keshav Memorial Technical Educational Society, v. The Convener

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

Boddireddy Srinu, S/o.late Kondarao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Barigela Andalu , P.Andalu, Vs The State of Telangana

LyagalaSudhakar, Vs The State of Telangana

Nagothu Satyanarayana, Vs The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary

Thamba Raghu Vs v. Rama Murthy Reddy

Thamba Raghu, Vs v. Rama Murthy Reddy