IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 1611 of 2002 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 8.10.2002 in WP NO : 18315 OF 2002 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Ferguson Colleg P.G.Centre, Rep. by its Correspondent, 1-6-174/5/26, Bapuji Nagar, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 Osmania University, Rep. by its Registrar, Hyderabad. 2 Chairman, All India Council for Technical Education, India Gandhi Sports Complex, New Delhi. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant:MR.B.ADINARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.S.S.PRASAD The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari ) Aggrieved by the order, dated 24.09.2002 made in W.P. No.18315 of 2002 by a learned Single Judge directing the first respondent herein to pass appropriate orders on letter dated 31.8.2002 filed by the writ petitioner, within a period of two weeks, the second respondent in the writ petition is in appeal. The first respondent herein filed the above writ petition complaining that on account of permission to intake 60 students instead of 40 and grant of renewal of approvals by the AICTE in respect of certain institutions it had addressed a letter dated 31.8.2002 to the second respondent herein and in view of the peculiar situation, the writ petitioner is unable to undertake admissions and ultimately sought for a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent herein to reply to the queries raised in the latter dated 31.8.2002. The learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition with the direction as stated above. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Appeal is filed by the Institution – second respondent in the writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the Osmania University and the All India Council for Technical Education, New Delhi. When this Writ Appeal is taken up for hearing, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant the intake of 20 students was for the academic year 2002- 2003 and the students admitted to the course have completed their course and have come out of the institution. Hence, no cause of action survives and as such, no further orders are necessary inasmuch as the students admitted over and above 40, have already appeared for the examination and have come out of the institution. Recording the same, the writ appeal is disposed of having become infructuous. No order as to costs. _____________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari __________________ Justice Sanjay Kumar July 06, 2009 MAS