IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 15330 of 2006 Between: Siraj MD, S/o.Mohd. Shafiullah R/o.Plot No.286, Vaidehinagar, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Jawaharlal Nehru Technological university, (JNTU), rep. by its Registrar, Hyderabad. 2 The Principal, Anwarul-uloom College of Engineering & Technology, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in not permitting the petitioner to appear for the first year paper i.e., Applied Physics of B.Tech Course in which the petitioner is said to have failed which was never communicated to the petitioner and forfeiting the petitioner's B.Tech seat by an order dated 31.5.2005 and not intimating the same as arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to appear for Applied Physics paper as is being given to other students in the ensuing exam and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.SATYAM REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.RATHANGA PANI REDDY The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 15330 OF 2006 ORDER: 1. This writ petition has been filed by Siraj Md. assailing the action of the respondents in not permitting him to appear for the 1st year i.e. Applied Physics of B.Tech Course. 2. Rule nisi came to be issued on 30-10-2006 and interim order also came to be passed on the said date directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to appear for the left over 1st year subjects of Applied Physics in the ensuing examination and declare result of the petitioner and issue all other necessary certificates, pending further orders vide orders in W.P.M.P.No. 19090 of 2006. 3. Learned standing counsel appearing for Respondent NO.1 submits that pursuant to the interim direction, the petitioner was permitted to write examination and results was also declared and therefore, nothing survives in the writ petition for adjudication. 4. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs. _____________________________ Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy 13th August, 2008. KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 15330 OF 2006 13th August 2008.