THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.9088 of 2008 and 9035, 9036, 9054, 9568, 10777, 11147, 11509, 12258 and 12370 of 2009 Dated: 28.06.2011 W.P.No.9088 of 2008 Between: Chaitanya College of Education, Markapur, Prakasam District. …Petitioner And The Acharya Nagarjuna University, rep.by its Registrar, Nagarjuna Nagar, Guntur District. …Respondent Counsel for the petitioners: Sri S. Sri Ram Sri Ch. Ravindra Babu Sri D. Kasim Saheb Sri S. Niranjan Reddy Sri K. Durga Prasad Sri N. Subba Rao Sri S.A.K. Mynuddin Counsel for respondent: Sri Srinivas Mantha The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.9088 of 2008 and 9035, 9036, 9054, 9568, 10777, 11147, 11509, 12258 and 12370 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: Since the issue raised in this batch of Writ Petitions is common, they are being heard and disposed of together. This batch of Writ Petitions is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondent in demanding the petitioners to pay the infrastructure fee, as illegal and arbitrary. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing counsel for the respondent submitted that the issue involved in this batch of Writ Petitions is squarely covered by order, dated 08.02.2011, in W.P.No.27195 of 2007 and batch, wherein this Court allowed the writ petitions in the following terms: 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. Having regard to the above-admitted position, this batch of writ petitions is allowed in terms of the above re-produced order. As a sequel to disposal of these writ petitions in the manner indicated above, all the miscellaneous applications pending in this batch are disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 28.06.2011 ES