HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No. 1302 OF 2009 Dated: 05-11-2009 Between: M/s. Private Polytechnics Managements Association, Andhra Pradesh, 3-6-215, Himayat Nagar, Hyderabad – 500 029, rep., by its Secretary Sri P. Balaji and another ... APPELLANT AND The All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), 7th floor, Chandra Lok Building, Jan path, New Delhi – 110001 and four others ... RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No. 1302 OF 2009 JUDGEMENT: (per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Being aggrieved by an order dated 26-10-2009 passed in Writ Petition No. 22722 of 2009, this appeal has been filed by original respondent No.2. 2. The facts in a nutshell giving rise to the petition are as under: For the sake of convenience, the parties to the litigation have been described as arrayed before the learned single Judge in the writ petition. The petitioner was granted permission by respondent No.1 on 25-08-2009 to put up construction on her land. In pursuance of the said permission, possibly the petitioner had started putting up construction on the land in question. Subsequently, a representation dated 15-09-2009 was made by respondent No.2 to the effect that the land in question belonged to him and in pursuance of the said representation, by an order dated 18-09-2009, the petitioner was prevented from putting up further construction and the permission which was granted on 25-08-2009 by respondent No.1 was kept in abeyance. The aforestated notice/order dated 18-09-2009 was challenged in the petition. After hearing the concerned advocates, the learned single Judge allowed the petition by quashing the impugned notice for the reason that there was no reason for respondent No.1 to issue the notice/order dated 18-09-2009. 3. The learned advocate appearing for respondent No.2 has submitted that the land in question belongs to respondent No.2 and not to the original petitioner. It has been submitted that a suit has been filed by him in the civil Court which is pending and, therefore, respondent No.2 had made a representation to respondent No.1. 4. It is pertinent to note that no order has been passed in favour of respondent No.2 by the civil Court. On the other hand, an injunction had been granted in favour of the petitioner, in legal proceedings initiated by the petitioner in respect of the land in question against the said respondent. 5. In spite of the above fact, respondent No.1 had passed order dated 18-09-2009 without hearing the petitioner. 6. Looking to the above facts, in our opinion, it cannot be said that the order passed by the learned single Judge is erroneous, especially in view of the fact that respondent No.1 had no right of whatsoever type to issue such an order to the petitioner. 7. For the aforestated reason, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order and, therefore, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. 8. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ appeal, WAMP No. 2725 of 2009, filed by the appellant for interim relief, is also dismissed. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 05-11-2009 ks