IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 24312 of 2005 Between: 1 Brilliant Bells Educational Society Pent House, 601, Girisikara Residency Hill Top Colony, Khairatabad, Hyderabad rep by its Secretary S.Papa Rao S/o.Anjaneedu. 2 Arjun College of Techonology and Science Sy.No.376/7, Batasignaram Village and Gram Panchayat Hayathnagar Mandal, R.R District. rep by its correspondent S.Papa Rao S/o.Anjaneedu. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Government of A.P rep by its Principal Secretary Higher Education Department Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 Commissioner and Directorate of Technical Education A.P.Hyderabad. 3 Convenor, EAMCET 2005 Admissions, A.P.State Council for Higher Education. Sankethika Vidya Bhavan, Masab Tank, Hyderabad. 4 All India Council for Technical Education Indire Gandhi Sport complex, I.P.Estate,New Delhi rep by its Secretary. .....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, order direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 3 in issuing the admission notification dt.6.10.2005 specifying that colleges granted approval after 8-10- 2005 would not be admitted to counselling as being illegal, arbitrary and un-constitutional and consequently declare the action of the respondents 1 to 3 in not admitting the 2nd petitioner college to the ongoing counselling for the academic year 2005-06 by recognizing the approval granted by the 4th respondent in Proceedings F.No.06/5//AP/ENGG/2005 /040 dt.11.11.2005 and in not including the petitioners Arjun College of Technology and Science, Sy.No.376/7, Batasingaram Village, HJayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District approved list of Colleges for the academic year 2005- 06 as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of the provisions of AICTE Act and direct the respondents to recognize the approval granted by the 4th respondent by including the 2nd petitioner college in the approved list of colleges andpermit the petitioner to run its Engineering College for 2005-06 and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.NIRANJAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No : 24312 of 2005 O R D E R : It is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the cause in the writ petition does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J Dated: 21-01-2009 KLP