Dismissed

Joseph Sriharsha and Mary Indraja Educational Society v. Union of India

Telangana HC7 Jun 2021WP/2014/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitions seeking direction to AICTE to permit institute approvals without NBA accreditation and for intake adjustments were disposed of as infructuous because the prayers related to the academic year 2019-20 had become obsolete by the time of hearing.

What did the court decide?

The petitions were disposed of as infructuous without costs due to the impracticality of the prayers regarding the academic year 2019-20.

Joseph Sriharsha and Mary Indraja Educational… — Education and Admissions | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

H'GH COURT FOR THE S] r",;;i,LT.I5,35 lfl3jl!,*i Ar HvDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY, THI *o i, o, foi,.oufilJi?fi ,",t J H I.

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE THE I JUsrlcE HIMA KoHLt THE HoNouRABLE sRr itgtt USTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶5

WR ITP ETITto N NOS:2 01 4 1 70F 2019

¶6

WP NO: 2014 OF 2019

¶7

Between:

¶8

1 Joseph Sriharsha and I\

¶9

;inti.,m;ifu^,d:ffi,"fl dr#*"1,^X,i:-q#",,s!|BJj,i;r,,nr,."iT

¶10

"ptruffif^{:fJn'd?f #ffid#"-E;ffi.} "hffi Lr"x&1"s#:r?,"ift

¶11

:iiffi^{l'#j#lliT;"",:i.ilBi[r,.f; irr;gpgpsxkff :r"Llssw}

¶12

l-3}#i:':#ffi{t"'.,,"ii'.r,ffif,^{itlJ119Tf,1?s,r!lilrx'r"',",:'1"'.issH} p,ot No l 02,

¶13

' B[,,tJ;,[a";,h,f i?.ifn,ffi l,?"X:ljfr??.#;:,1, JiB:, ""

¶14

AND

¶15

...PETITIONERS

¶16

'1 Union of rndia, Ministrv of Human Resources Deveropment, Sastri Bhavan, New Delhi. Rep. by its Secietary.

¶17

2 All lndia councir for Technicar Education (ArcrE), Nerson Mandera Marg, Vasant Kunj, New Dethi - 110 ozo nep.-itJlr;;d;!;;ibi;,y.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition under Articre 226 of rhe constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in {he affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be preased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in prescribing at sub clause (a) of clause 2.7.4 of chapter-ll of the All lndia council for Technical Education Approval Process Hand Book zolg-20 for reduction of intake below the maximum intake limit allowed for the new institution, for the course(s) of the petitioner institutions for the purpose of increase lntake/Additional course(s) without NBA accreditation, being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 30 (1) of constitution of lndia and consequenfly direct to the 2nd respondent to permit the petitioner institutions to seek approval for the academic year 2o1g-20 and to reduce the lntake and/or increase the Intake and/or Additional course(s) within its existing approved intake of the year 20'18-19 without insisting for NBA Accreditation.

¶20

¶21

lA NO:^{1 OF 2019}

¶22

petition under section^{1sl cpc prayingthat in the circumstances stated in the} p"iniJ"'"tn6^{Hiql cou't muybe pleased to directthe} affidavit 2nd respondent^{filed in support to p"rrit-til"'p5iii"""it} "t'ii'"^{insit,ition. to'.""[ appiovalfor reduction of} inrake and/or^{increase o, in"tJ*l''r"najoiuJJition.fcourse(s) for the academic year} i6;;;o ;i;i"^{ih" totul} "pJtou"a intake of^the vear^2018-1e'

¶23

Counsel^{for the Petitioners:SRI' SRICHARAN-TELAPROLU} counsel^{for the Respono"-ti,"r'iJ'iiiii"r'r il'TESHwARRAo' ASST'soLlclroR} GENERAL ;iu;;if;t the Respondent^{No' 2: sRl' K' RAMAKANTHREDDY}

¶24

WPN O:^20170F2019

¶25

Between:--'i.-nnfrrf

¶26

Between:--'i.-nnfrrf Educational Society,, Sy. No.452, 453 and 570, Venkateswara Colony, ion,^{putrn.rreru, sanga iieOayoistrict (Erstwhile Medak Dist)' Representedby} its Member,^{Dr.Rev.K.V'K.Rao}

¶27

St. Marys College^{of Engineering and Technology,r Syt N94q2r 453.and570'} venkateswara colony,^{tD-A,Patancheru,sanga Reddy District (Erstwhile Medak} Dist), Represented by^{its Correspondent,Dr' RevK V K Rao}

¶28

Dr. Rev. K.V.K.^{Ra6,, S/o. Late Venkaiah,Aged 57 years, Rio PlotNo'102,} High Court Colony, Vanasthalipuram,^{Hyderabad - 500 070 "}

¶29

...PETITIONERS

¶30

AND

¶31

Union of lndia, Ministry^{of Human Resources Development, Sastri Bhavan,New} Delhi. Rep. by its Secretary.

¶32

2 All lndia Council for Technical Education^{(AICTE),, Nelson Mandela Marg,} Vasant Kunj, New Delhi^- 110 070, Rep. its Member^Secretary.

¶33

...RESPONDENTS

¶34

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in prescribing at Sub Clause (a) of Clause 2.7.4 of Chapter-ll of the All lndia Council for Technical Education Approval Process Hand Book 2019-20 for reduction of intake below the maximum intake limit allowed for the new institution, for the course(s) of the petitioner institution for the purpose of increase lntake/Additional Course(s) without NBA accreditation, being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 30 (1 ) of Constitution of lndia and consequently direct to the 2nd respondent to permit the petitioner institution to seek approval for the academic year 2019-20 and to reduce the lntake and/or increase the lntake and/or Additional Course(s) within its existing approved intake of the year 2018-19 without insisting for NBA Accreditation.

¶35

lA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶36

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 2nd respondent to permit the petitioners institution to seek approval for reduction of intake and/or increase of intake and/or additional course(s) for the academic year 2019-20 within the total approved intake of the year 2018-19.

¶37

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRl. SRICHARAN TELAPROLU Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: SRl. N RAJESHWAR RAO, ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL

¶38

counsel for the Respondent No. 2: M/s. MEGHA RANI AGARWAL The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

itlt ,{

items N0.12-13

THE HON'BLE THE CHIE F JUSTI CE HIMA KOHLI

¶43

AND

¶44

THE HON'BL E SRI JUSTIC E B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶45

W.P.Nos.2014 and 2017 of 2019

¶46

COMMON ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Hima Kohli)

¶47

The matter is listed in the category of 'for dismissal' today, as none had appeared on behalf of the petitioners on the^{last date} of hearing. Today, Mr. Sricharan Telaprolu, learned counsel^appearsfor the petitioners and tenders an apology^{for his absence on the last date.} He also informs the court that by^{now, the prayers made in the writ} petitions have been rendered^{infructuous,as they relate to the} academic year 2019'20.

¶48

In view of the^{submission made hereinabove, the present} petitions are disposed^{of as infructuous along with the pending}

¶49

applications, if^anY.

¶50

SD/- K,VENKAIAH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY'

¶51

SECTION OFFICER

¶52

To,

¶53

The Secretary, Union of lndia, lr/inistry of Human Resources^{Development, Sastri} Bhavan, New Delhi.

¶54

The lvlember Secretary, All lndia Council for Technical Education^(AICTE), Nelson Mandela l\rlarg, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi^- 110 070.

¶55

One CC to Sri. Sricharan Telaprolu, Advocate IOPUC]

¶56

One CC to M/s. Ir/egha Rani Aganirral, Advocate [OPUC]

¶57

One CC to Sri. K. Ramakanth Reddy, Advocate^(OPUC)

¶58

Two CCs to CC N. Rajeshwar Rao, Asst. Solicitor^{General,High Courtfor the} State of Telangana. (OUT)

¶59

Two CD Copies.

PM.&$

HIGH^COURT

DATED:0710612021

HE Sfr, iC:
ov.
\ .<br>> \
I
g 16 itii{ ?czl
r))
<br>,.,' ,,'/
'/
-a ,/

¶64

ORDER

¶65

WRIT PETITION^{NOS: 2014 &2017OF 2019}

¶66

Disposing of the^WP Without costs.

¶67

Joseph Sriharsha and Mary Indraja Educational Society v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joseph Sriharsha and Mary Indraja Educational Society v. Union of India

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

Burra Soundarya Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

The State of Telangana Vs P.Bixapathi Rao

News item published in Deccan Chronicle Vs The State of Telangana

Rrm Educational Society, Vs Union of India

Vaishnavi Constructions Vs Sri Raghavendra Constructions

Syed Atan Shahab Mandavi Vs State of Telangana