IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO.1198 OF 2009 Dt.04.2.2010 Between: Aurora’s Technological and Research Institute Paarvatapur, Uppal, Hyderabad Rep. by its Pratap Surve, S/o. Ganpat Rao Surve … Appellant And C. Raja Bharat Varma and another … Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: Sri K. Venumadhav Counsel for Respondent No.1: Sri C. Ramachander Raju Counsel for Respondent No.2: Sri K. Rathangapani Reddy THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO.1198 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy) This Writ Appeal is filed against order dt.11.8.2009 in Writ Petition No.1198 of 2009, whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition filed by respondent No.1. The controversy raised in the Writ Petition by respondent No.1 was whether the action of the appellant in not permitting respondent No.1 for appearing for the second year B. Tech., examinations on the ground of alleged shortage of attendance was justified. It is the specific case of the appellant college that respondent No.1 had only 57% of attendance, while respondent No.1 pleaded, by way of an additional affidavit filed in the Writ Petition, that his information revealed that he had 67% of the attendance and that therefore he is entitled to condonation of the attendance upto 10% under Regulation 5 of the Regulations framed by respondent No.2 – University. The learned Judge, on the basis of the said statement of respondent No.1 made in the affidavit, allowed the Writ Petition. During the hearing of this Writ Appeal, the appellant has placed before us the details of the attendance of respondent No.1 and according to the appellant, respondent No.1 had only 57.22% of attendance and that as he did not have the minimum required attendance of 65%, respondent No.1 was not entitled to condonation of shortage of attendance. In our considered view, respondent No.1 ought not to have been granted the relief by the learned Single Judge on his mere ipse dixit. In the absence of any material placed by him in support of his plea that he had 67% of the attendance, at best respondent No.1 should have been relegated to the appellant to substantiate his claim that he had 67% of the attendance. In this view of the matter, we allow the Writ Appeal and set aside the order of the learned Single Judge. Respondent No.1 is permitted to make a representation to the appellant with specific details and material in support of his claim that he had 67% of the attendance. If the appellant is satisfied in this regard, it may pass appropriate orders. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Appeal, W.A.M.P. No.2502 of 2009, filed by the appellant for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ______________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ ______________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 04.2.2010 bnr