Dismissed

P.Sandeep v. Dr.Ntr University of Health Sciences, Ap, Vijayawada

Telangana HC13 Dec 2022WP/11217/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed in 2008 by students seeking re-evaluation of answer scripts for 2007 examinations. Decided in 2022 after a long delay. Court held that no live issue subsisted at that distant point of time and dismissed the petition as infructuous.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as infructuous. Miscellaneous applications, if any, stood closed. No order as to costs.

P.Sandeep Vs Dr.Ntr University of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[^32e5 ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA--" AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Speciat Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY. THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REODY

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO:11217 oF 2008

¶9

Between:

¶10

L P Sandeep. S/o.p Satharah Student of B Sc (MLT), Sai lnstitute of Health Sciences Mission Hospitat n"jo. (iiiil"iglv^{\rvrL r.,' i}

¶11

2 V-Klanthi..S/o.lvtadhusudan Student of B.Sc (MLT). Sai lnstitute of Heatth sctences. Mrssion Hospital Road. Karimnigir.^.'-', '

¶12

K Bindu Saoar, S/o Satvanarayana Student of B Sc (MLT), Sai lnstitute of Heatth Sciences Mrssion uospitJi noiir- xa;i;#g;:^t

¶13

...PETITIONERS

¶14

AND

¶15

' 3J,TJF#U:rsitv or Health sciences, AP, Vijavawada,, Krishna District, rep.

¶16

Sai lnstitute of Health Sciences, Mission Hospital Road, Karimnagar.

¶17

. Petition Under Articte 2?g.-"111"..9qr:titution of ,".," J:r;l::T: circumstances stated in the, affidavit fit"; il;;;;ih; the High court may be pleased to issue a writ or order.or oirection.;.;;;1;i;; one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus: i. declare ,nu.1"tl9l ot tne f st rlsponlent in gefting the answer scripts varuated rmproperrv of petitioner " r-".J riJiirner No.2 (Ha, Ticket No. 04N-20702o and olN_zdtolz .".p".tir"ry) l;;"-];; as Micro Biotogy and Pathology Examination and_pathology ""', in * #'r" petitioner No.3 (Hall Ticket No 04N-207010) of B Sc (ML"f) i""Jr"iJarring November/December, 399i^{,. i,egat and arbitrary it consequentf, Ji,L.t} tn"'rrt respondent to get the answer sffipts of pathotogy a1!. Migro Biotogy in sL iar as petitioner No.1 and petitioner No 2 vide Ha, Ticket No 0aN-2070"2'o .Joi*-zozorz ,"a prin"r"sy exam, in so far as petitioner No 3 vide nar*ckeiNo^-oqN-zozoto or e.s" tuiii conducted during November/December, zooz, tnioujn new set of varuators and declare the result accordingly.

¶18

¶19

l.A.NO:1 OF 2008( WPMP. NO: 14566 0F 2008)

¶20

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support.of the peiitio;, ine High Court may b" pt;;;;;'i; paifiof"gy drrect the respondents to get the answer scripts of triicro aiotogy ""0 of B Sc(MLT) examination conducted by the '1st ,esponoent uniiersity "onorciJi in November/December 2OOT in so far as petrtionli No 1 and petitioner No.2 (Hall ricket No 04N-207020- and 04N-2070t2 respecavety) is concerned and Pathorogy examination in so far as petrtioner ru" a ilri ricftit ruo o+r_zozo]ol is concerned,. valued by an independent vatuaioi, i, t"rr. of the judgment rendered by this Hon,ble Court in Wp No.6917 of ZOO8 Ot. f S.+ZOOa &-nOirg disposal of the above writ petition.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI.p.BASAVAIAH

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI.D.V.NAGARJUNA BABU (Not present) Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI.A.pRABHAKAR RAO (Not present)

¶23

The Court made the following ORDER

¶24

THE HON'BLE^{TIIE CHIEF JUSTIcE UJJAL BHTIYAN} AND

¶25

THE HON'BLE SRI^{JUSTICEC.V. BHASKARREDDY}

¶26

WRIT PETITION^{No.LL2L7 of 2OO8}

¶27

ORDER: eei^{thetlon'ble tne (:tnef Justtc" Uitat Bhulatl)}

¶28

None appears for^{the petitioners on call}

¶29

This writ petition^{pertains to re-evaluationof answer} scripts in Micro^{Biologzarrd Patholory examination} conducted by the^{respondentsduringNovember/} December, 20O7.

¶30

At this distant^{point of Lime,no live issuecarl be said} to be subsisting in^{the writ petition.}

¶31

4 Writ petition is^{accordingly dismissedas infructuous'}

¶32

Miscellaneous apptications^{pending, ifa'ny, shall} stand closed. Horvever,^{there sha1l be no order as to costs'}

¶33

SD/-I.NAGALAKSHMI ,DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// Gr

SECTION OFFICER

1 One CC to SRI.P.BASAVAIAH,^Advocate IOPUC] 2 One CC to SRI.D V.NAGARJUNA^{BABU, Advocate} [OPUCJ 3 One CC to SRI.A.PRABHAKAR^{RAO, Advocate} [OPUC] 4 Two CD Copies 5 One spare copy S.A. bs /

HIGH COURT

DATED:1311212022

ORDER

WP.No.11217 of 2008

L:' 0 2 FtB ?u23 :<.
t
/,/

¶43

DISMISSING THE W.P

¶44

AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS.

¶45

o
e
\ ")

P.Sandeep v. Dr.Ntr University of Health Sciences, Ap, Vijayawada

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Sandeep v. Dr.Ntr University of Health Sciences, Ap, Vijayawada

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

P.Babu Rao, Vs Airports Authority of India, and Ano.

M/s.Lns Infrastructures Vs The State of Telangana

M/S. Sonath Wood Industries and 5 Others Vs Tax Recovery OFFICER-11, RANGE-11

Muktha Bai , Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Vanjari Eswar Vs The State of Telangana, And 2 Others

Union of India Vs R Ramaiah