Telangana High Court
WA/1330/2006 of NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada, Vs Akhil Singal on 26 December 2006
THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Appeal No.1330 of 2006 Between NTR Unviversity of Health Sciences, Vijayawada ..Appellant AND Akhil Singal and another ..Respondents :: JUDGMENT :: Counsel for the appellant Sri D.V.Nagarjuna Babu Counsel for
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.
Conclusion
HON’BLE SHRI G.S.SINGHVI, THE CHIEF JUSTICEANDHON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
Writ Appeal No.1330 of 2006
BetweenNTR Unviversity of Health Sciences, Vijayawada
..Appellant
AND
Akhil Singal and another
..Respondents
:: JUDGMENT ::
Counsel for the appellantCounsel for respondent No.1Counsel for respondent No.2
Sri D.V.Nagarjuna BabuSri Venkata Rangadas Kanuri Sri K.Rathanga Pani Reddy 26.12.2006
Per G.S.Singhvi, CJ
This appeal is directed against order dated 17.7.2006 passed bythe learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.14648 of 2006 whereby he directed the appellant to allow the writ petitioner (respondent No. 1herein) to participate in the second phase of counselling.
At the commencement of hearing, Sri D.V.Nagarjuna Babu,learned counsel for the appellant stated that in pursuance of thedirection given by the learned Single Judge, respondent No.1 wasallowed to participate in the second phase of counselling and he wasgranted admission in B.D.S. course in Government Dental College,Hyderabad, but he did not avail the same.
In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for theappellant, the appeal is disposed of as infructuous. However, it ismade clear that the order passed by the learned Single Judge shall notbe treated as precedent for any other case and if a similar litigation isinstituted in future, then the University shall be free to raise all legallypermissible objections.
As a sequel to disposal of the writ appeal, WAMP No.2822 of2006 is also disposed of as infructuous.
G.S.SINGHVI, CJ
26-12-2006
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
psr