IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 16683 of 2008 Between: Sai Prasanna Educational Academy (Sri Siddhartha Junior College),. Rep. by its Secretary/Correspondent Smt. B. Susheela, W/o. Rajeshwar, aged 34 yrs R/o. Dudekulapally, Post Buddaram, Bhupalpally Mandal, Warangal, Warangal District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Board of Intermediate Education, Rep. by its Secretary, A.P. Vidya Bhavan, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 The District Vocational Educational Officer, Warangal , Warangal District. 3 The Regional Inspection Officer, Warangal, Warangal District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction preferably one in the nature of writ of Mandamus by declaring the impugned proceedings in Rc.No.20219/E1-1/2008 dt.24-7-2008 issued by the 1st respondent is illegal, void without jurisdiction apart from violative of principles of natural Justice and also besides in violation of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India and set aside the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to continue the petitioner Society College, and pass such other and further order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner: MRC.RAJA SEKHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: KUM.C.SINDHU KUMARI The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been ﬁled by Sri Prasanna Educational Academy (Sri Siddhartha Junior College), rep. by its Secretary/Correspondent, Smt. B. Susheela with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction preferably in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned proceedings in Rc.No.20219/E1-1/2008 dt.24-7-2008 issued by Board of Intermediate Education-the ﬁrst respondent as illegal, void without jurisdiction apart from violative of principles of natural Justice. When the writ petition came up for admission, Ms. C. Sindhu Kumari, learned standing counsel received notice on behalf of the first respondent-Board of Intermediate Education. In view of the order proposed to be passed, the facts of the case are not required to be detailed. Heard Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri S. Satyanarayana Prasad, learned Senior Counsel representing Ms. C. Sindhu Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceedings impugned in this writ petition are based on the High Power Committee report, but copy of the report is not furnished to the petitioner, and therefore, it amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice. A further submission has been made that non-furnishing of the High Power Committee report, basing on which the impugned proceedings came to be issued, caused much prejudice to the petitioner since the contents of the High Power Committee report were not made known to it. Sri S. Satyanarayana Prasad, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3 submits that the petitioner failed to show any prejudice caused to it because of non- furnishing of the copy of the High Power Committee report and that the petitioner is very much aware of the report of the High Power Committee since it is stated in the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of W.P.No.1262 of 2008. He would also contend that the petitioner has not made any request for furnishing a copy of the High Power Committee report, despite knowledge of such report. I have gone through the proceedings of the Secretary, Board of Intermediate Education, A.P. Hyderabad-ﬁrst respondent. The High Power Committee report has been based for issuing the proceedings impugned in this writ petition. Unless the contents of the High Power Committee are known to the petitioner, the petitioner would be incapable in meeting out the adverse comments made by the High Power Committee in its report. In that view of the matter, the proceedings impugned in this writ petition cannot be sustained and the same are liable to be set aside. The ﬁrst respondent is directed to furnish High Power Committee report and thereupon the petitioner, if so advised, can submit further explanation within a period of one week. After submitting further explanation, if any, the ﬁrst respondent is at liberty to issue fresh orders within a period of two weeks. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is allowed. _________________________ (B. Seshasayana Reddy, J.) 4th August, 2008 Note: C.C. in 2 days. (B/o) Js. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Convenor, L.P.Cet-2007, Kakinada, East Godavari District. 2 2 CCs to G.P. for Education, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad. (OUT) 3 2 CD copies.