IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 17074 of 2006 Between: Perumalla Veena (Hall ticket No. 141607488) D/o P. Narasaiah R/o H. No. 42-279/2, Shramika Nagar, Beside A.S. Rao Nagar, Moulali, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh repby Principal Secretary, Higher Education Departmetn, Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The State Council of Higher Education 1st Floor JNTU Masab Tank Campus Mahaveer Marg, Hyderabad rep by Secretary 3 The Convener ICET-2006 SDLCE Building Kakatiya University, Warangal, District .....RESPONDENTS 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 Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in rejecting the admission of the petitioner into MBA Course in the ICET, 2006 on the ground that one should pass SSC or equivalent examination with Mathematics as one of the Subjects as illegal arbitrary and contrary the guidelines issued by the AICTE. and also violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of the India. Consequently direct the respondents to admit the petitioner into MBA course for the academic year 2006- 2007 by following the guidelines issued by the AICTE. and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.L.V.S.NAGARAJU Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION The Court made the following : ORDER The relief sought for in this writ petition is to declare the action of the respondent in rejecting the admission of the petitioner into MBA course, as arbitrary and illegal. Rule nisi came to be issued on 21.8.2006. On 6.11.2007, since there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner, WPMP No.21407 of 2007 came to be dismissed for non-prosecution. Even today, though the writ petition is listed under the caption ‘for orders’, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. It indicates that the petitioner is not interested in pursuing the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs. __________ 30-07-2008 rkk