Secretary, Smt.S.K.Sharmila Begum v. Guntur District
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 27 Jun 2011
- Bench
- C V NAGARJUNA REDDY
Outcome
Allowed
a) the writ petitions are allowed, setting
Provisions considered
Judgment
Operative part
Khasim Memorial College of Education, Podili, Prakasam District, rep. by its Correspondent & Secretary, Smt.S.K.Sharmila Begum …Petitioner And The Acharya Nagarjuna University, rep.by its Registrar, Nagarjuna Nagar, Guntur District. …Respondent Counsel for the petitioner: Sri D.Kasim Saheb Counsel for respondent: Mr.Srinivas Mantha, SC for University The Court made the following: Order: At the interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. This Writ Petition is filed for the following substantive relief: Proceedings
…to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, respondent declaring No.ANU/Affil/ dt.10.09.2008 Fees/Rates/2007-08 demanding the Development Fee/Infrastructure Fee Rs.1,50,000/- for 100 students even after collecting for 100 Affiliation Rs.40,000/- (each Rs.400/- candidates) in addition to the fee fixed by the Committee for Fixation of Fee Structure in Private Un-aided Professional Colleges constituted by the Govt.of A.P., prescribed under Andhra Pradesh (Aided/Unaided) Colleges of Private Minority Education (Regulation of admissions into B.Ed., Course through Common Entrance Test) Rules, 2005 made under Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983, as illegal, arbitrary, without power or authority and opposed to Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same.
Sri Srinivas Mantha, learned Standing Counsel appearing the respondent-University, stated similar Writ Petitions were disposed of and he placed before the Court a copy of Order, dated 08.02.2011, in W.P.No.27195 of 2007 and batch, wherein this Court allowed the Writ Petitions in the following terms: the demand notices a) the writ petitions are allowed, setting petitioners, on the ground that they are not based on any statute, ordinance or regulation, made under the A.P. Universities Act, 1991; issued b) it shall be open to the University to inquire as to whether the petitioners have collected any amount the students, towards development fee/infrastructure fee, and if it emerges that the fee has been collected, the petitioners shall be under obligation to refund the same to the students, or pay it to the University; and c) if any statement made by to be petitioners incorrect, that would, by itself, be a ground to deny the renewal of affiliation. this regard Having regard to the above-admitted position, this Writ Petition is allowed in terms of the above re-produced order. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.18937 of 2008 is disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 27th June, 2011
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: a) the writ petitions are allowed, setting
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Admissions and Prohibition of Capitation Fee Act, 1983; Constitution of India — art. 14; A.P. Universities Act, 1991.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 27 Jun 2011. The bench was C V NAGARJUNA REDDY.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.