Dismissed

K.Saritha, D/O K.Tekaram, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC16 Feb 2023WP/21676/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by a student against State Departments seeking mandatory directions for timely disbursement of tuition and maintenance fees. The Court dismissed the petition as infructuous after counsel submitted that the cause no longer survives for adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as infructuous; miscellaneous applications closed.

K.Saritha, D/O K.Tekaram, Vs The… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

13303 l

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 21676 OF 2013

¶8

Between:

¶9

K. Saritha, D/o K. Tekaram, Occ: Student, R/o. New Era Jr College, Vikas Nagar, Dilsukh Nagar, Hyderabad

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Through its Prl. Secretary. Social Welfare Department, Secrateriat, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

¶13

2 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Through its Prl. Secretary. Finance Department, Secrateriat, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

¶14

3 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Through its Prl. Secretary, Higher Education Department, Secrateriat, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

¶15

The Commissioner, Board of lntermediate Educatron. Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndra praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith. the Hrgh Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more partrcularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus dectaring the action of the respondents an not taking immediate steps to the disbursal of tuition fee (RTF) shall be made in two rnstaliments to the college concerned and the disbursal of maintenance charges (MTF) shall be made in four installments to the students bank accounts before 31 st March of every year whlch may be resulted in frustration / deprivation of "Life and Liberty" of the petltioner, guaranteed under article 21 of the constitution of lndla are arbltrary, lllegal, vlolatlve ol constltutional rights

¶18

l.A. l{O: 1 OF 2013(WPMP. NO: 26546 OF 2013)

¶19

Petrtion under Section 151 CPC praying that in the crrcumstances stated rn the affidavit filed in support of the petition the High Court rnay be pleased to direct the respondents to disburse of pending tuition fee (RTF) and maintenance

¶20

charges (lt/TF) for the academic year 2012-13 before 31st July, 2013 in the interest of .justice

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI C. HARI PRASAD REPRESENTING FOR SRI D.V. RAO

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR FINANGE & PLANNING

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent No.3 & 4: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

¶25

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶26

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO

¶27

WRIT PETITION No.21676 of 2OL3

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

When the matter is taken up for hearing, Sri C. Hari Prasad, learned counsel representing Sri D.V. Rao, learned counsel lor the petitioner, fairly submits that the cause in the r,',rit petition does not survive for adjudication.

¶30

In view of the above submission, the writ petition IS

¶31

dismissecl as infructuous.

¶32

Misceilaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶33

SD/-C. PRAVEEN^KUMAR ASSIS TANT^REGISTRAR

¶34

//TRUE^COPY//

¶35

SECTION OFFICER

¶36

^ To, 1 one CC to SRt D V RAO. Advocate [OPUC] i i;;" Ed,^{jJcp Foa iiNANce il Fu'Aur'uN'oHish court for the state of} Telanoana [OUT] 3 i;; iclio,6F^{FbnHtcHER EDUCATIoN,High court for the stateof} Telanoana [OUT] o il3'i6lL'dF^{Fbn soclAl wELFARE,Hish court ror the stateor} Telangana. [OUT] 5. Two CD^CoPies BN

BS EsL<.

HlGH COURT

DATED:1 610212023

ORDER

WP.No.21676 ot 2013

$E 5lA;(-
:-.'+ L.^
1Y \ \l
15 l{Afl ?[?]
-'
-t'
*
l-riry|T

¶43

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS

¶44

ro
PE
6 r,lr",

K.Saritha, D/O K.Tekaram, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Saritha, D/O K.Tekaram, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

Jk Paper Ltd. Vs Andhra Pradesh Forest Development Corporation

Tandra Ram Babu Vs State of Telangana, Rep.by its Principal Secretary

Sadiyam Durgaiah, Vs Madusudhan Rao

Yenugula Venkat Narayana, Vs The State of Telangana

P. Narsingam, S/o Mallaiah, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh,.

A.v.v.Raju Vs The Principal Secretary