Telangana High Court
WP/24690/2004 of Sri Sairam College of Education, Managed by Vs The Regional Director, The Southern Regional Committee, on 30 December 2004
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO.24690 of 2004 Between: Sri Sairam College of Education, Managed by Rural Education
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
WRIT PETITION NO.24690 of 2004
Between:
Sri Sairam College of Education, Managed by Rural Education DevelopmentOrganization, rep by its Principal P. Subramanyam, S/o. P. Nagappa, aged 39 years,Rampuram West, Hanumampalle,Penukonda Mandal, Anantapur District.
..... PETITIONER
AND
1 The Regional Director, The Southern Regional Committee, NCTE
(National Council for Teacher Education), Bangalore.
2 The Member Secretary, NCTE, Indiragandhi Indore Stadium, No. 16, Indraprastha Estate, New Delhi.
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased toissue a writ, order or direction especially one in the nature of the Writ of Certioraricalling for all the connected records including the impugned proceedings of thesecond respondent dated 13-10-2004 and quash the same as illegal, improper,unjust, arbitrary and contrary to law and further to direct the second respondent to re-consider the representation/Review petition dt. 23-12-2004 forthwith by accordingpermission for the additional intake of 40 seats in BE d Course for the academicyear 2004-2005 which will be commenced from March 2005.
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.MAHADEVA KANTHRIGALA
Counsel for the Respondents: MR.B.ADINARAYANA RAO (SC FOR N.C.T.E)
The Court, at the admission stage, 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:
The present writ petition is filed seeking to call for the connected records includingthe impugned proceedings of the second respondent dated 13.10.2004 and quashthe same as illegal and arbitrary and further to direct the second respondent to re-consider the representation/Review petition dated 23.12.2004 filed by the petitioner-College forthwith by according permission for the additional intake of 40 seats inB.Ed Course for the academic year 2004-2005 which will be commenced fromMarch 2005.
The case of the petitioner-College, in brief, is that it made an application to the firstrespondent on 31.12.2002 seeking enhancement of intake capacity of students from120 to 160 for the academic year 2003-2004 in B.Ed Course. It is stated that the first respondent passed an orderdated 22.06.2004 refusing permission for additional intake on the ground that theinstitution has not provided adequate facilities as required under the norms andstandards for B.Ed Course. That against the said orders, the petitioner filed anappeal before the 2[nd] respondent, which was rejected by order dated 13.10.2004 onthe ground that the institution was not able to produce the approved staff list by theaffiliating University and the documents shown to the council were proved to beunsatisfactory. The grievance of the petitioner is that again it made a representation,dated 23.12.2004 in the form of a review requesting the 2[nd] respondent to re-consider his earlier decision dated 13.10.2004 in view of the subsequent ordersissued by the affiliating University approving the staff, but the 2[nd] respondent has notpassed any orders thereon so far. Hence the present writ petition came to be filed.
Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for therespondents.
As can be seen from the writ averments, it is clear that the petitioner withoutwaiting for passing of final orders by the 2[nd] respondent on his representation/reviewpetition dated 23.12.2004, has approached this Court within a week period by filingthe present writ petition. Therefore, without going into the merits of the matter, I deemit appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following observation:
The respondents shall consider and dispose of the review petition inaccordance with law, if any pending. No costs.
Date: 30.12.2004Nsr/Tvk
________________
(N.V. RAMANA, J)
Conclusion
.... REGISTRAR
// TRUE COPY //
SECTION OFFICER
1 The Regional Director, The Southern Regional Committee, NCTE
(National Council for Teacher Education), Bangalore.
2 The Member Secretary, NCTE, Indiragandhi Indore Stadium, No. 16, Indraprastha Estate, New Delhi.
3 Two CD copies.