Dismissed

Medhodist Degree Collee, v. The Director and Commissioner of Collegiate Education

Telangana HC6 Dec 2023WP/29583/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a Degree College challenging the inaction of the Commissioner of Collegiate Education regarding a representation dated 06.03.2014, as the cause of action did not survive.

What did the court decide?

No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

Medhodist Degree Collee, Vs The Director and… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

132s21

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 29583 OF 2014

¶7

Between:

¶8

Medhodist Degree Colleq, King Koti Road, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Principal, Manager and Correspond6nt, Sri K. Prem Raj.

¶9

.....PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The Director and Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Secretary to the Department of Higher Education,, Government of Telangana State, Telangana Secretariat, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶13

.....RESPONDENTS

¶14

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, declaring the inaction of the 1't respondent in not disposing the petitioners representation dated 06-.03-.20 14 as illegal, arbitrary^and violation of principles of natural^justice and consequently direct the respondents to dispose the representation dated 06-03-2014 by^fixing a short^time.

¶15

I.A.NO:1 OF 2014(WPMP. NO: 36958 OF 2014)

¶16

Petition Under Section^'151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances^stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the^High Court^{maybe pleased to} fix an early date of hearing.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI G.PURUSHOTHAM^REDDY

¶18

Counsel forthe Respondents : GP FOR EDUCATION

¶19

The Court made the following ORDER

¶20

¶21

HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶22

WRIT PETITION o. 295a3 0 F 2OL4

¶23

ORDE R:

¶24

The prayer as sought for by the petitioner in the present writ petition reads as under:

¶25

"To pass an order or direction or a writ particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the 1't respondent in not disposing the petitioner,s representation dated 06.03 .20L4 as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to dispose the representation dated 06.03.2014 by fixing a short time..".

¶26

Learned Assistant Government pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents brings to the notice of this Court that the cause of action in the present Writ petition does not survive for adjudication anymore.

¶27

Bringing the said submission on record, the present Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶28

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ

¶29

Petition, shall stand closed.

¶30

//TRUE COPY//

¶31

SD/.V.KAVITHA ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

SECTION OFFICER

l.TwoCCstoGPForEducation,HighCourtforthestateofTelanganaat Hvderabad' [OUTI

¶36

, i#;"cdi;'siic.Furusnotram^{Reddv,Advocate[oPUC]}

¶37

Two CD^CoPies

HIGH COURT

DATED:0611212023

ORDER

1Y\ i sTAr€
(
cl 1 tJ Ii[, 20?3 -bo
,+
* Oii.'r^TC\i(, t

¶43

WP.No.29583 of 2014

¶44

DISMISSING THE W.P

¶45

AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS.

¶46

t ':
<br>4rv

Medhodist Degree Collee, v. The Director and Commissioner of Collegiate Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Medhodist Degree Collee, v. The Director and Commissioner of Collegiate Education

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

A. Bhaskar Reddy Vs State of Telangana

M/s. C.P.LData Services (India) Private Ltd. Vs The Union of India

Chiraboina Laxmaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Sri R. Pratap Singh and another Vs Union of India and 2 others

Sri Keerti Sai Reddy Yalala Vs The Union of India

Orsu Thirupathayya Vs The Union of India