LAWS(APH)-2010-7-111

MATHRUSREE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Decided On July 13, 2010
MATHRUSREE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No. 2 in grating permission to respondent No. 4, vide proceedings dated 11.08.2004, for starting a new private unaided degree college as illegal and without jurisdiction.

(2.) At the hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Higher Education and learned Counsel representing standing counsel for respondent No. 3 University are present. The learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 submitted a bunch of papers with counter on behalf of counsel for respondent No. 2.

(3.) The petitioner is an educational society which has established Manjira Vidyalayam wherein it is running classes 1 to 10 at Ramayampet village, Nalgonda District. It has pleaded that intending to start a degree college in Ramayampet it was awaiting notification in that regard to be issued by respondent No. 2. It has further averred that it has learnt that respondent No. 4 has made an application for grant of permission for running an unaided degree college at Ramayampet for the year 2003-04 in pursuance of a notification issued by respondent No. 2 for the academic year 2003-04 and that respondent No. 2 has rejected the said application on the ground that respondent No. 4 does not have the necessary paraphernalia for running a degree college; that respondent No. 4 evidently prevailed over respondent No. 1 which issued G.O. Rt. No. 759 dated 10.09.2003 according special permission to consider the former's proposals to establish new private unaided degree college for the academic year 2003-04 at Ramayampet (outside the framework of guidelines given to the task force). The petitioner specifically pleaded that respondent No. 1 ought not to have interfered in the matter by issuing the said G.O. and has also alternatively pleaded that when the said G.O. was issued for the academic year 2003-04, the same should not have been acted upon by respondent No. 2 for the subsequent year as the academic year for which the said G.O. was issued has lapsed.