This is the order disposing of a petition under Article 226 challenging the eligibility of the fourth respondent to continue as Chairman of TSCHE. The court accepted reliance on the petitioner's counsel submitting the case is infructuous and dismissed the writ petition accordingly.
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.
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
WRlT PET|TION NO: 1954 OF 2021
Between:
Dr. K. Vijay Kumar, s/o. K.Krishnaiah, aged about 37years,Occ . Post _Doctoral Fellow (P'DF) in ICSSR, Department of PublicAdministration,Osmania University, Hyderabad- 500 007.
...pETtIoNER
AND
,..RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 ol the Constitution of lndiaprayingthat inthe circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, theHigh Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction, moreparticularly onein thenatureof a Writ of Quo-Warranto against the fourth respondentbelng continued as Chairman of Telangana State Council for Higher Education(TSCHE) and declarethat fourth respondent is not eligible to continue as Chairman under Section 5(1) ofthe Andhra Pradesh State Council for Higher Education(Act 16 of 19BB) as adoptedby the Telangana State Council for Higher Education(TSCHE).
lA NO: 1 OF 2021
Petition under Section 151 CPCpraying that in the circumstances statedin the affidavit filed in support of thepetition, the High Courtmay bepleasedto restrain the fourth respondent from functioning as Chairman ofTelanganaState Council for Higher Education(TSCHE), pending disposal of the abovewrit petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner : M/s. K. V. RAJASREE Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION
ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL
Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SMT. P.SARADA, SC FOR TSCHE Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWARA RAO, ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI TARUN G. REDDY
The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
WRIT PETITION No.l954 of 202,l
ORDER:
When the molter is token up for heoring, leorned counsel oppeoring for thepetitioner hod coniended thot the couse in the writ petition does not survive for odjudicotion ond hos become infructuous.
Recording the soid submission, the writ petition is dismissed os
infructuous. No cosis.
Pending miscelloneous petitions, if ony, sholl siond closed.
SD/. N.CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
IiECTION OFFICER
To,
1 . One CC to M/s. K. V. Rajasree, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to Smt. P. Sarada, SC for TSCHE, [OPUC]
HIGH COURT
DATED: 0610912021
ORDER
S.rAi { C
-7
:fL.. -l j' t--:
tgsi?t$,,$
\r-o
/
c,:sei{
WP.No.1954 of 2021
DISMISSING THE WP AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS
)t ;fi1
Dr. K. Vijay Kumar
The State of Telangana
The Telangana State Council for Higher Education
The Union of India
Sri T.Papi Reddy
Abhinand Kumar Shavili
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
