Disposed

Koochadi Dhruva Rao v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC20 Jan 2025WP/1522/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking consideration of a PG-medical admission candidate under NRI quota in second-phase counselling despite missing document cut-off. Court permitted filing a representation before the University, which must decide by reasoned order before next counselling.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to file representation with documents before respondent No.2; respondent No.2 to decide by reasoned order before next counselling.

Koochadi Dhruva Rao Vs The State of Telangana — Education and Admissions | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

t0l

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE

¶4

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE G. RADHA RAN]

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 1522 oF 2025

¶6

Between:

¶7

Koochadi Dhruva Rao,. S/o, K,_F"T Mohan Rao, Age. 29 years, Occ. Student, R/o. Plot No. 'tlo and.1il, Flat No. 402, Raos tlest, Mangapurah-iotony, Road No.-1, Old Alwal, Hyderabad, Telangana-500010.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Telangana, represented by its principal Secretarv. Medical anrl Health Family Welfare Department, Seiretariat eirildings, fy<itiraOaO_SOO OSS

¶11

Kaloji.Nararayana Rao University of Health Sciences, represented by its Registrar, Warangal.

¶12

...RESPONDENTS

¶13

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 direetion more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents particularly the 2nd respondent in not considering the petitioner for registration for admission into PG-Medical course for the academic yeat 2o24-2s under Management euota Category 2 (NRl) lor 2 phase of counselling and subsequent phase of counselling as ' illegal, arbitrary, unconslitulional and consequenfly direct the respondents to consider the petitioner request for registration for admission into PG-Medical course under Management Quota Category 2 (NRl) in second phase of counselling and subsequent phases of counselling for the academ ic year 202425.

¶14

lA NO: 1 oF 2025

¶15

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner request for registration for admission into PG-Medicar course under Management euota category 2 (NRr) in second phase of counsering and subsequent phases of counsering for the academic year 2024-25 pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI L. RAM SINGH

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent No.l: cp FOR MEDICAL HEALTH FW

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI T. SHARATH

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

¶21

I I

¶22

THE HONOURABLE SRI JTISTICE SUJOY PAUL

¶23

AND

¶24

THE HON,BLE DT. WSTICE G. RADHA RANI

¶25

WRIT PE-TITION No.1522 of 2o25

¶26

ORDER (per Hon'ble SP,J)

¶27

Sri L. Ram Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶28

Sri T. Sharath, learned counsel for the respondent(s).

¶29

2 Heard on admission.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner got registered himself for Management Quota but could not register for NRI Quota because he^was not in^{possession of NRI} documents at that^point of tirne. In other words, the^{petitionerdid} not have relevant documents for NRI Quota before cut-off date.^He submits that the petitioner will^prefer a^{representationbefore} respondent No.2 tomorrow i.e. 21.01.2O25 and tJle said^authority may be directed to consider it and take a decision before^{the next} counselling.

¶31

4 Learned counsel for the respondent(s) has no objection to this innocuous^prayer.

¶32

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of by^permitting the petitioner to file such representation along with^relevant documents before respondent No.2. In turn,^{respondent No.2 shall}

)

consider ald lecide such representation, in accordancr: with law by passing a reasoned order before the next counseling. It is made clear that this; Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. No costs.

¶37

Interlrcutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand

¶38

closed.

¶39

SD/. A.V.S. PRASAD ASSISTANTiREGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Principal Secretary, Medical and Health^{Family WelfareDepartment,} Secretariat Buildings, The State of Telangana,^{Hyderabad-SOO055} 2. The Registrar, Kalbli Nararayana Rao University^{of Health Sciences,} Warangal.

¶44

One CC to Sri L. Ram Singh, Advocate IOPUCI

¶45

Two CCs to GP for Medicdl Health Family Welfare,^{High Court for the State} ofTelangana, at Hyderabad [OUT] 5. One CC to Sri T. Sharath, Advocate[OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies TJ BN

HIGH COURT

CC TODAY

DATED:2010112025

ORDER

WP.No.1522 of 2025

f- I Tr\f€ t'
),.
.'li
a!1
):) -t r,l
(J ts lNl ?s6
<br>F

¶52

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

¶53

WITHOUT COSTS

¶54

t ry

Koochadi Dhruva Rao v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Koochadi Dhruva Rao 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

M/s. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs M/s. Sai Rayala Seema Paper Mills Ltd.

M/s. Sri Venkata Sambasiva Enterprises, Vs The Deputy State Tax Officer

Ranga Rukmini Vs The State of Telangana

Ginjupally Jyothi Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Prakjyothi Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Deepak Nagori Vs Income Tax Officer