IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 18265 of 2008 Between: 1 Bollapu Sriha D/o. B. Narasimha Reddy, Rep. by her father B. Narasimha Reddy R/o. 5-1-23/1A, Kaviraja Nagar, Khammam. 2 B. Narasimha Reddy S/o. Anantha Reddy R/o. 5-1-23/1A, Kaviraja Nagar, Khammam. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Higher Education EC.2 Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Chairman, A.P. State Council for Higher Education & Competent Authority, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 3 The Convenor, EAMCET-2008 JNTU , Masab Tank, Hyderabad. 4 The Principal, VNR Vignana Jyothi Institute of Engineering and Technology Vignan Jyothi Nagar, Bachupally, Via Kukatpally, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring action of the 4th Respondent in issuing notiﬁcation dt. 13-8-208 without following G.O.Ms.No. 61, Higher Education (EC-2) dt. 13-5-2008 , G.O.ms.No. 53, Higher Education (EC) dt. 10-5-2006 and the guidelines issued in WP No. 16290/2007 dt. 28-9-2007 and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to pass orders Prohibiting the 4th Respondent in exploiting the candidates who applied under B category seats in the 4th Respondent institute and to permit the 1st petitioner to submit her application without payment of 1st year tuition fee, letters of 2 references from the management of the 4th Respondent institute, income proof and IT returns of the parent for admission into Engineering course in B Category seats in their institute for the year 2008-09. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.M.V.PRATAP REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondent No.2: MR. C.SUDESH ANAND, STANDING COUNSEL. The Court made the following : ORDER: Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the cause of action in this writ petition does not survive and therefore, the writ petition has become infructuous. Recording the said submission, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:15th November, 2008. cs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK}