Dismissed

Arfaath Educational Society v. The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal

Telangana HC13 Aug 2024WP/38058/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of out-of-state student admissions in a Polytechnic course. The court held the cause of action no longer survived for adjudication and dismissed the petition as infructuous without costs.

What did the court decide?

No relief was granted as the petition was dismissed as infructuous.

Arfaath Educational Society Vs The State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

{

¶2

[^32s6 ]

¶3

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

¶4

TUESDAY ,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 38058 OF 2016

¶8

Between:

¶9

Arfaath Educational Society, HNo.22-29, Kundala Bazar, lslampura, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District Rep by its Secretary tMr. Md.Mahmood Ali

¶10

Mina lnstitute of Engineering Technology for Women, Near Fire Station, Ramachandragudem, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda Diskict Rep by its Correspondent Mr. Md.Mahmood Ali

¶11

tMd.Mahmood Ali, S/o Mansoor Ali Aged about 55 years, Occ Business, H.No.22-29, Kundala Bazar, lslampura, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District

¶12

...PETITIONERS

¶13

AND

¶14

The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal, Secretary, Higher Education Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad

¶15

The State Board of Technical Education and Training, Rep by its Secretary 7th Floor, BRIM Bhavan, Hyderabad

¶16

J. The Convenor, TS POLYCET- 2016 (Admissions), Sankethika Vidya Bhavan, Masab Tank, Hyderabad.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

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 an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of -Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in rejecting the request of the petitioners to ratify the admission of out of state - students admitted to the 2nd Petitioner institution in Polytechnic Course during the academic year 2016-17 as being illegal, arbitrary unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to forthwith ratify and approve the admissions of out of state students listed in Annexure P-1 whose admission was rejected and admitted in the 2nd petitioner institution under the left over vacant seats (spot admissions) category and furthed.direct the respondents to treat the said admissions as valid for all purposes

¶19

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 46902 0F 2016)

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner institution to impart training in Polytechnic Course in their respective branches including issuance of hall tickets, appearance in the examinations and declaration of results to the said out of state students listed in Annexure P-1 whose admission was not ratified by the 3rd respondent, pending the disposal of the writ petition

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. KRISHNA REDDY REP SRl P. PANDU RANGA REDDY

¶22

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

¶25

¶26

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶27

WRrT PETITION No.3EOSE of 2016

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

When the matter is taken up for hearing, Mr. Krishna Reddy, learned counsel, representing Sri P. Pandu Ranga Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the cause in the writ petition does not survive for adjudication and hence, the writ petition has become infructuous.

¶30

In view of the said submission, the Writ Petition is

¶31

dismissed as infructuous. No costs.

¶32

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand

¶33

clo sed.

¶34

SD/.V.KAVITHA ASSISTANT\REGISTRAR -,-

//TRUE^COPY//

SECTION^OFFICER

To,

Bliif',"s'""'tPEYPnL'"'""' ff"'#BtsAFff if, $.;"3:t':g,[:'f BM \ Y BSK

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 310812024

ORDER

1rif. Sr 4
,< o (-
({.
14 0tT 21]21

¶47

WP.No.38058 of 2016

¶48

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETTTION AS TNFRUCTOUS WITHOUT COSTS

¶49

Arfaath Educational Society v. The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arfaath Educational Society v. The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal

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

Seshamma Vs The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Anirudh Dharur, Vs Union of India

Gaddala Sai Teja Vs Union of India

S. Shanker Vs Sri. Raghunandan Rao

Sri Puvvala Anil Kumar Kishen Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Sri Harika Kishen Vs The State of Telangana