THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU WRIT PETITION No. 10619 OF 2007 Dated: 27-01-2011 Between: Ameeruddin Academy of General, Technical and Professional Educational Society, Giddalur, Prakasam District, rep., by its Treasurer Sri S. Basheer Ahamed, S/o late S. Khader Basha, aged about 35 years, R/o Giddalur, Prakasam District ... PETITIONER AND The Acharya Nagarjuna University, rep., by its Registrar, Nagarjuna Nagar, Guntur District ... RESPONDENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU WRIT PETITION No. 10619 OF 2007 ORDER: Relying upon the judgment dated 18-02-2010 of the learned Single Bench of this Court passed in Writ Petition No. 27195 of 2007 and batch, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that demand notice cannot be implemented. To appreciate the contention, operative part of the judgment is reproduced hereunder: “for the foregoing reasons, a) the writ petitions are allowed, setting aside the demand notices issued to the petitioners on the ground that they are not based on any statute, ordinance or regulation, made under the A.P. Universities Act, 1991; b) it shall be open to the University to inquire as to whether the petitioners have collected any amount from the students, towards development fee/infrastructure fee, and if it emerges that the fee has been collected, the petitioners shall be under obligation to refund the same to the students, or pay it to the University; and c) if any statement made by the petitioners in this regard is found to be incorrect, that would, by itself, be a ground to deny the renewal of affiliation” Learned counsel for the respondent is not averse to the impact of the judgment indicated above, but submits that clause (b) of the judgment casts an obligation upon the petitioner - institution to refund the amount to the students or pay to the University, in case any amount is collected from the students towards development/infrastructure fee. Learned counsel for the petitioner concedes to the contention made by the learned counsel for the respondent. In the aforementioned backdrop, while quashing the impugned demand notice, liberty is granted to the University to seek implementation of Clauses (b) and (c) of the judgment reproduced above if need be. Disposed of. NISAR AHMAD KAKRU, CJ 27-01-2011 K. Shyleshi