Telangana High Court
WP/26093/2000 of Ramakrishna Paramahamsa Educational Society, Rep. by its Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation on 29 December 2004
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 26093 of 2000 Between: Ramakrishna Paramahamsa Educational Society, Rep. by its
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI
WRIT PETITION NO : 26093 of 2000
Between: Ramakrishna Paramahamsa Educational Society, Rep. by its Secretary andCorrespondent Sri V.Agam Rao S/o V. Kondal Rao R/o Srinagar Colony,Hyderabad.
..... PETITIONER
AND
1. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Rep. by itsVice Chairman & Managing Director, Musheerabad, RTC XRoads, Hyderabad.2 The Regional Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road TransportCorporation, Picket, Jubliee Bus Stand, Secunderabad.
3 The Divisional Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Hyderabad City Region, Hyderabad.
4 The Andhra Pradesh State Council of Higher Education Rep. by its Secretary, PO Box No.34, Saifabad, Hyderabad.
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased toissue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamusa) declaring the action of the respondents in not issuing the concessional buspasses/route passes to the students of B.C.A. course studying in the petitionercolleges and also b) declare the Clause 9 of the permission granted by the A.P.StateCouncil of Higher Education dated 27-7-99 as arbitrary, illegal and violative ofArticles 14 of the Constitution of India. c) Direct the respondent to issue concessional bus pass/route pass to the students studying in B.C.A course in thepetitioner college forthwith.
Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.R.RAGHUNANDAN
Counsel for the Respondent Nos 1 to 3.: MRS.NANDA R. RAO, SC FORAPSRTC.
Counsel for the Respondent No.4: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION.
The Court made the following :
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
Sri Kalyan Chakravarthi, representing on behalf of the learned counsel for thepetitioner states that the cause in the writ petition does not survive and no furtheradjudication is necessary.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs.
___________
To
1. The Vice Chairman & Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh State RoadTransport Corporation, Musheerabad, RTC X Roads, HyderabadTransport Corporation, Musheerabad, RTC X Roads, Hyderabad
2. The Regional Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Picket, Jubliee Bus Stand, Secunderabad.
3 The Divisional Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Hyderabad City Region, Hyderabad.
4 The Secretary Andhra Pradesh State Council of Higher Education, PO Box No.34, Saifabad, Hyderabad.
5. Two CCs to the Government Pleader for Higher Education, High Court Building, Hyderabad. (OUT)
6 Two C.D. copies.
sj