THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.8587 OF 2010 Dated 16th April, 2010 Between: V.R.S.S.Pavan Kandala …Petitioner And The Registrar, JNT University, Kakinada and another. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Mr.P.N.Murthy. Counsel for the respondents: Mr.G.Venkat Reddy for Mr.K.Rathangapani Reddy, SC for University The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside letter, dated 22-03-2010, issued by respondent No.2 detaining the petitioner in the second semester of final year B.Tech, as being illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri P.N.Murthy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1- University. By the impugned proceedings issued by respondent No.2, the petitioner was detained on account of shortage of attendance. Under Regulation 6 of the Regulations made by Respondent No.1- University, every student should have a minimum of 75% of attendance and respondent No.1- University is empowered to condone the shortage of attendance up to a maximum of 10% only. As communicated by respondent No.2, the petitioner had only 53.8% of attendance in the second semester of final year B.Tech. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of his ill-health for some time and the agitation pertaining to demand for a separate State leading to disruption in functioning of colleges, the petitioner suffered the shortage. I n B.Yugandar vs. Principal, Kuppam Engineering College, Chittoor District[1], a Division bench of this Court, of which I am a party, after considering the extant Regulations framed by respondent No.1-University held that the respondents have no power or authority to condone shortage of attendance beyond 10% and that this Court cannot issue a judicial fiat to the authorities to condone the shortage of attendance beyond what is permissible under the Rule. As the petitioner has not disputed the fact that he had only 53.8 % of attendance, the action of the respondents in detaining him on account of shortage of attendance cannot be held to be either arbitrary or illegal. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is without any merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.11051 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 16th April, 2010 lur [1] 2008 (2) ALT 529 (D.B.)