Dismissed

Andhe Naga Sonali v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC21 Aug 2023WP/19114/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana, via an ad-interim order, dismissed Writ Petition No. 19114 of 2023 as infructuous on counsel's admission without orders as to costs, closing any pending miscellaneous petitions. The petition sought relief against strike-off from college rolls and demanded direction for fee collection.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; the petition dismissed as infructuous.

Andhe Naga Sonali Vs State of Telangana — Education and Admissions | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

|³²⁵²¹

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 19114 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

Andhe Naga Sonali, D/o. A. Muralidhar Rao, Age.20 Years, Occ. Student, Rl/o. H.No. 1-9-6451646, Flat No. 303, Namitha Grand A, Vidyanagar, HYD - 500044.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 State of Telangana, Represented by Principal Secretary, Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, Telangana.

¶12

2 Osmania University, Represented by its Registrar, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500007.

¶13

't Pendekanti Law College, Represented by its Principal, D.No. 1-1-338, Street No. 6, Vivek Nagar, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500007.

¶14

4 M/s. Vasavi Education, Regd No.9'18 of 1980, Represented by its Secretary, D.No. 3-6-2'15, Street No. 15, Hirhayathnagar, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500029.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

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 order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus thereby directing the action of Respondent No.3 and 4 in issuing Show Cause Notice dated 27lOGl2O23 and OB|OT l2O23 and subsequent order of^"striking off' names of petitioner from the rolls of the college dated 1510712023 as not only unjust and illegal but also arbitrary to the law, against the principles of Natural Justice, contrary to the rules laid down by the Respondent No. 2 University and in violation of Article 14, 21-A of the lndian Constitution and consequently direct them to withdraw the notice dated 1510712023 and directing Respondent No. 3 to collect the examination fee from the Petitioner and forward lhe same to Respondent No.2 University and permitting the Petitioner herein vide

¶17

hall ticket no. 17 27 -.lO-832-O41 Io appear in the Vl Semester^rlxamination of BA LLB sYDC

¶18

lA NO: 't OF 2023

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed ir support of the^petition, the High Cour nray be^pleased to direct Respondent No.lJ and 4 to collect my examination fees, 'ride' hall ticket no. 17 27 -20-832-041 for Vl semester examination of BA-LLB S'/DO course, and forward it to Responc ent No.2 University so that they can issut: the hall ticket to enable me to appear in Vl semester examination^{per'ding ,lispor;al} of the writ petition

¶20

lA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶21

Petition under ;ection 151 CPC^praying that in^the citcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High lourt may,re^pleased to direct Respondent No 3 to collect my examination fees, and f()nvar,l the same to Respondent No. 2 5 ermitting the Petitioner to appe,ar in tre Vl semester examination of BA-LI .B 5YDC course vide hall ticket no. 1721'-20-832-041 , consequently directinlr Respondent No. 2 to issue the hall tir;ke. to enabling petitioner to appear ir Vl semesler examination scheduled florn 03.08.2023 to 14.O8.2023, pending d sposal of the writ petition

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. MAYUR MUNDRA

¶23

Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: GP FOR EDUCATION

¶24

Counsel for the Respc,ndent No.2: SRl. JAGANNATHA RAO

¶25

Counsel for the Respcndent Nos. 3&4: SRI . SRIKANTH

¶26

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶27

I I

¶28

HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶29

WRIT PETITION No.191L4 ot 2023

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

Mr.Mayur Mundra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner and Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf oF Respondents brings to the nctice of this Court that the cause oF action in the^present Writ Petition does not survive for adjudication.

¶32

Taklng into consideration the submissions of both the learned counsel appearing on behalf petitioner as well as respondents, the W.P.No.19114 of 2023 is dismissed as infructuous. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶33

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶34

To,

¶35

SD/-G.SIREESHA ASSISTAryT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// seF8lr oFFrcER

¶36

' Iyo""?r";l"r&iTioR^{EDUCATIoN,Hish court for the stare of retansana, at} 2. One cc to SRt. jng411$ryn RAO, Advocate lopucl 9 9n"^{CCto SRtSRIKANTH,} Ao"oirlUio'p"u6j" 4. one CC to SRt. nanvun uuruonn-lAiri,iLj""topuct , ,4.^{,o CDCopies} CJPx

¶37

HIGH COURT

¶38

DATED:2110&2023

¶39

n
fE ST4; €
/;8
( I tr B 0[T 2Ml
i ,,r
r-'//
\ ',,i\ o. *,.. i ..- ,/./
. -, '.., l, ,,.,.

¶40

ORDER

¶41

WP.No.19114 of 2023

¶42

DISMISSING'THE WRIT PETITION AS INFRUCTUOLIS WITHOUT COSTS

¶43

q...'
b N

Andhe Naga Sonali v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Andhe Naga Sonali v. State of Telangana

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

M/s. Jeevaka Industries Pvt. Ltd., Vs A.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission

Syed Zaker Vs Union of India

Mohd Akber Vs Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd.

Smt.Maimuna Khatoon Vs The State of Telangana

Md. Zaki Uddin, Sec-Bad. Vs C.E.O., Secunderabad Cantonment Board, Sec-Bad. and Ano.

M/s Legend Minerals, Vs The State ofTelangana