IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO.1267 OF 2009 Dt.03.11.2009 Between: University College of Technology (Autonomous) Osmania University, Hyderabad Rep. by its Registrar of Osmania University … Appellant And C. Maruth Krishna … Respondent Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Deepak Bhattacharjee Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Goverdhan Venu THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO.1267 OF 2009 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Anil R. Dave) Being aggrieved by an order dt.25.9.2009 passed in W.P. No.19287 of 2009, this appeal has been filed by the original respondent – University. The case of the respondent – original petitioner before the learned Single Judge in the aforestated petition was that the petitioner had backlog of nine (9) subjects, i.e., he had failed to clear nine subjects, and with the backlog of nine (9) subjects, he could have been permitted to attend the next semester i.e., B. Tech. IV Year, I semester classes. On the above statement and on the basis of the Regulations shown to the Court, the petition was disposed of by directing the university authorities to permit the petitioner to attend the IV year I Semester classes provided he had backlog of nine (9) subjects only. The learned Advocate appearing for the appellant – University today brought to our notice that the Regulation, which had been relied on by the learned Advocate for the original petitioner, is an old one and new Regulations, effective from Academic Year 2003-2004, have been placed on record, according to which, to have admission in B. Tech. IV Year, I Semester, there should not be backlog of more than eight (8) subjects. In view of the fact that old Regulations had been shown to the learned Single Judge, the learned Single Judge had disposed of the petition with the aforestated direction. In the aforestated admitted facts and, as the Regulations shown by the learned Advocate before the learned Single Judge were old one, and as it has been submitted by the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent – original petitioner that no other point was argued by him before the learned Single Judge and as the petition was disposed of only on the aforestated one ground that the petitioner had backlog of nine (9) subjects only, we set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and restore the petition to file so as to enable the parties to place their facts before the learned Single Judge so as to enable him to decide the petition afresh. It would be open to the learned Advocate appearing for the original petitioner to raise all plausible contentions before the learned Single Judge and the appellant – University shall also file counter affidavit before the learned Single Judge, so that after hearing the concerned Advocates, the learned Single Judge can decide the petition. The Writ Appeal is accordingly allowed with no order as to costs. The petition shall be notified before the learned Single Judge taking up such petitions, on 24.11.2009. ______________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ ______________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 03.11.2009 bnr