Chief Justice Hima Kohli and Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy disposed of Writ Petitions Nos. 2014 and 2017 of 2019 as infructuous because the prayers related to the academic year 2019-20 had become infructuous before the hearing. Counsel appeared to apologize for last-minute absence.
The petitions were disposed of as infructuous without costs.
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.
H'GH COURT FOR THE S] r",;;i,LT.I5,35 lfl3jl!,*i Ar HvDERABAD
MONDAY, THI *o i, o, foi,.oufilJi?fi ,",t J H I.
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE I JUsrlcE HIMA KoHLt THE HoNouRABLE sRr itgtt USTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY
WR ITP ETITto N NOS:2 01 4 1 70F 2019
WP NO: 2014 OF 2019
Between:
1 Joseph Sriharsha and I\
AND
...RESPONDENTS
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.
a
lA NO:1 OF 2019
petition under section1sl cpc prayingthat in the circumstances stated in the p"iniJ"'"tn6Hiql cou't muybe pleased to directthe affidavit 2nd respondentfiled in support to p"rrit-til"'p5iii"""it "t'ii'"insit,ition. to'.""[ appiovalfor reduction of inrake and/orincrease o, in"tJ*l''r"najoiuJJition.fcourse(s) for the academic year i6;;;o ;i;i"ih" totul "pJtou"a intake ofthe vear2018-1e'
Counselfor the Petitioners:SRI' SRICHARAN-TELAPROLU counselfor the Respono"-ti,"r'iJ'iiiii"r'r il'TESHwARRAo' ASST'soLlclroR GENERAL ;iu;;if;t the RespondentNo' 2: sRl' K' RAMAKANTHREDDY
WPN O:20170F2019
Between:--'i.-nnfrrf
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndiapraying 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.
lA NO: 1 OF 2019
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.
Counsel for the Petitioners: SRl. SRICHARAN TELAPROLU Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: SRl. N RAJESHWAR RAO, ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL
counsel for the Respondent No. 2: M/s. MEGHA RANI AGARWAL The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER
itlt ,{
i
items N0.12-13
THE HON'BLE THE CHIE F JUSTI CE HIMA KOHLI
AND
THE HON'BL E SRI JUSTIC E B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
W.P.Nos.2014 and 2017 of 2019
COMMON ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Hima Kohli)
applications, ifanY.
SD/- K,VENKAIAH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY'
SECTION OFFICER
To,
PM.&$
HIGHCOURT
DATED:0710612021
HE Sfr, iC:
ov.
\ .<br>> \
I
g 16 itii{ ?czl
r))
<br>,.,' ,,'/
'/
-a ,/
ORDER
WRIT PETITIONNOS: 2014 &2017OF 2019
Disposing of theWP Without costs.
\c
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Joseph Sriharsha and another
Educational Society and St. Marys College of Engineering and Technology
Union of India
All India Council for Technical Education
Hima Kohli
B. Vijaysen Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
