THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10758 of 2009 Date: 19.7.2010 Between: St. Mark Educational Institution ..... PETITIONER AND The Regional Officer, South Central Regional Office, All India Council for Technical Education, Hyderabad and others. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner : Ms. Annapurna for Sri J. Narayana Swamy Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: Sri K. Ramakanth Reddy Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 and 5: None The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10758 of 2009 Order: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal having regard to the nature of the dispute raised in the writ petition. I have heard Smt. Annapurna, learned counsel representing Sri J. Narayana Swamy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. Ramakanth Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for A.I.C.T.E. representing respondent Nos. 1 to 3. The writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in granting regular permission for running the integrated campus for the petitioner-society for running B.Tech., college in pursuance of its application made for the year 2009-2010. By order dated 21.7.2009, this Court, while admitting the writ petition, directed respondent Nos.1 to 3 to consider the petitioner’s application re- submitted on 11.6.2009 in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in pursuance of the said direction, the petitioner’s application was considered and an L.O.I. was granted on 17.8.2009 by the All India Council for Technical Education, New Delhi with the direction to the petitioner to deposit Rs.50.00 lakhs and Rs. 80,000/- towards non-refundable visiting fee for a period of eight years. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said order was complied with. She further submitted that as the academic year for which the application was made had come to an end, a fresh application was made. As no further action was taken, the petitioner filed separate applications, in which, this Court passed an order on 16.11.2009 wherein a direction was issued by this Court that inspection for the next academic year shall be caused at the earliest on the basis of the previous application of the petitioner. Sri K. Ramakanth Reddy, learned Standing Counsel submitted that the petitioner made a fresh application as per the new Regulations and that an inspection was made on the said application. He further submitted that the process of considering the petitioner’s application is pending and decision is yet to be taken. Having regard to the facts noted above, I find it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the direction to respondent No.1 to dispose of the petitioner’s application on the basis of the inspection report and the Regulations which are in force and communicate the decision to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WVMP Nos. 849 and 850 of 2010 and W.P.M.P. Nos. 24439 and 24440 of 2009 are disposed of as infructuous. __________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY,J DATE: 19th July, 2010 pnb