Dismissed

Basani Manish Chandra v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC14 Sept 2023WP/25737/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the notification for online registration of management quota MBBS/BDS seats by a university was dismissed. The court found the challenge based on apprehension without statutory violation, noting all eligible candidates are entitled to apply regardless of earlier counselling participation.

What did the court decide?

Petition under Articles 226 and Section 151 CPC dismissed without costs.

Basani Manish Chandra Vs The State of Telangana — Education and Admissions | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

13377 1

¶2

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

¶3

THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE . AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 25737 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

Basani Manish Chandra, S/o. Basani Srinivas, aged about 17^{years, Occ.} Student, R/o. H.No. 2-2-1109lBKlLlGi38 Nandanavanam^Colony,Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad - 500 013, Telangana State. Represented by^his natural father Basani Srinivas S/o. B. Venkat^Ramaiah

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1- The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary,^{Health Medical and} Family Welfare Department, Telangana Secretariat,^Hyderabad.

¶12

1. The Vice Chancellor, KNR University of Health^{Sciences Warangal,} ..lelangana State.

¶13

Thg R-egistrar, KNR University of Health^Sciences Warangal,^Telangana state

¶14

...RE'P.NDENTS

¶15

Petition under Artide 226 of the Constitution of lndia^{praying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith, the HighCourt may be} pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction, more in the nature of Writ of^Mandamus by declaring that the action of the respondents^{particularlythe 3rd respondenl} herein, in issuing the notification dated.^{1 1-09-2023for onlineregistration of} management^quota for the courses of^{MBBS/BDS in affiliatedprivate} medical/dental colleges and Neelima lnstitute of Medical^{Sciences (Affiliatedto} Anurag University), as illegal, improper, arbitrary, unjust,^{voilative of the principle} of naturat^justice, contrary to the^guidelines issued by^{the State Government from} time to time and unconstitutional and consequently^{directthe 3rd respondent to} take into account the earlier notification^{dated. 03-08-2023in respectof} considering the cases of the individual^{under the management quota for}

¶16

MBBS/BDS courses in pursuance of the notification dated 03-08-2023^issued by the 3rd respondent '^/ithout reference to the present notificat^{on dated.1 1-09-2023.}

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances^{stated in} the affidavit filed in ;upport of the^petition, the High Court may be^{pleased to direct} the respondents pa''ticularly the 3rd respondent herein, in ssuing the notification dated. 11-09-2023 lor online registration of management^quota for the courses^of MBBS/BDS in affilirted private medical/dental colleges and Neelima lnstitute of Medical Sciences^(,\ffiliated to Anurag University),^{pending disposal} of the^above writ petition.

¶19

Counsel for the Pefitioner: SRI G.MOHANA SAIBABA^{FOR SRI} CH.VENKAT RAMAN

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.'l: SRI N.PRAVEEN KUMAR, GP^FOR MEDICAL HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: SRI A.PRABHAKAR^{RAO, SC FOR} KNRUHS

¶21

The Court made th : following: ORDER

¶22

THE HON'B E THE CHIEF IUSTICE A OKARADHE AND

¶23

THE HON'BLE SRI IUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR W.P.No.25737 of 2023

¶24

ORDER,^(Per tbe I lon'ble rbe Cb!e[] ilne Akk Ardtlh4

¶25

Heard Mr. G.Mohana Saibaba, iearned counsei represcnting

¶26

Mr. Ch.Venkat ltaman, learned counsel for the pefltioner;

¶27

Mr. N.Praveen I{umar, Ie arned G overnment Pleader for Health, Medical and lramily Wel[are Deparrment represenring respondenr No.1; and Mr. A.Prabhakar Rao, Iearned Standing Counsel for IGloji Narayana Rao Universiry o[ Health Scienccs represenung respondcnts No.2 and 3 (briefly 'thc Universiry' hereinafter)

¶28

With the consent of the parues, the matter is heard hnally

¶29

Petitioner is an aspirant lor admission to MBBS/BDS course in the State of Telangana. Peurioncr had participated in the earlicr round of counselling and had an opuon of seeking admission to Mamata Acadcmy of Medical Science, tsachupally. However, the petrtioner did not avarl o[ the said opuon

¶30

¶31

¶32

'l'he Un versih,. has issucd a norification datccl 11.09 2023 lor filling up thl scats, rvhich are r.acant alter first round of counselJing. Petitroner has filcd this pctitron cluesrioning rhc aforesaid nodllcauon on dle sround that only th,: candidates, who har.e applied Ln hrst round of counselJing alone,, ate enritled to respond to thc nouficatron dated 11.09.202-i issued by rhe Universitv.

¶33

W'hen a querJ was put to learned counsel fcrr the petrtioner as to which provrsion/rule debars the candidates flrom responding to notification dated i1.09.2023 issued by the Univcrsrry, if they have not applied in response to thc first notificarion, learned counsel for the petitioner is unablc to ltotnt out afly statutory provision/rulc

¶34

The wri petition is based on an apprehcnsir>n rhat in case, candidates, u,ho have not appiied in response to rhc first notificatron, i te allowcd to pafticipatc in rcspoflsc to the riotiflcation dated 11.09.2023. the chances of th,: petitioner, who has secured a^'ank of 1,7i.llt, getring admission to MBBS/BDS course would Le dimrnishcd

¶35

¶36

l. 'l'he writ Petluon is not based on inlraction o[ any statutory provision/rule^{and is merelybascd on an apprchension o[ the} petitioner.^{Every eligible candidate is enutled to apply in response} to the notihcarion^{dated 11.09.2023. 'I'his courtcannotissuea writ} prohibiting^{thc elignblecandidates lrom applying in responscto the}

¶37

notilrcanon datcd^{71 .09 .2023.}

¶38

F-or the aforcmenfloned^{reasons, we do not find any mcrit in}

¶39

the wtit pctiuon^{and the same is, hetcby,dismissedNo costs'}

¶40

As a sequel,^{miscellancousperiuons,pending if any' stand}

¶41

closed.

¶42

SDIR. KARTHIKEYAN ASSISTANT^REGIST

//TRUE^COPY//

SECTIO oFFICER

1 2 ?,ls33Jif 8i?tx'^ffi^{ltrHAliil!!flft t?I['"J'-'o*='Hishcourt} 3 'sly*','"':almraT.eaH'flra:atISHX**"'ro""t

¶47

4 Two^{CD CoPies}

¶48

PSK. BS

CC TODAY

HIGH COUR-I'

DATED:1410912023

ORDER

WP.No.25737' of 2023

---
1 iri E q;:
-'-
I
ttt ls
\
\ /.. -./
' ":. ). , \ t,-,1'-_.(
-..i::,-- ..-

¶57

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS.

¶58

@)o'{'s &st

Basani Manish Chandra v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Basani Manish Chandra v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. G.Aravind Kumar Vs Union of India

Mohd. Saleem Ahmed Vs Mohammed Akif Safvan

Mr. G. Ramesh Kumar Vs Union of India

Mr. Ravi Kumar Pulli Vs Iifl Home Finance Ltd.

Thanda Harini Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Marine Narsimlu Vs The State of Telangana