IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 18758 of 2008 Between: B.Sunder Rao S/o Guruvaiah Plot no. 339, Opp: LIC Quarters, Near Birla Mandir, Adarshnagar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND The Director, School of Planning & Architecture, Jawakarlal Nehru Technological University, Masab Tank. hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT 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 an appropriate writ, order or direction, more in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent in not in not considering and taking any action pursuant to the representation made by the students as well the staﬀ of the College requesting to open the gate opposite to portico for no apparent reason whereby causing irreparable loss and hardship to the pupil as well to the staﬀ as being unjust and arbitrary ad consequently direct the respondent to forthwith open the gate opposite to portico, in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.RAMCHANDER GOUD 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. 18758 OF 2008 ORDER: 1. This writ petition has been ﬁled by B. Sunder Rao, a student of Bachelor of Architect pursuing 5th year course in Respondent Institution. 2. The petitioner is a student of Bachelor of Architect pursuing 5th year in the respondent college. College is adjacent to the main road leading to Mahedipatnam- Lakdikapool. A representation has been submitted by the petitioner requesting the respondent to open the gate, existing towards Shanthi Nagar Colony so as to enable the students to reach the college. According to the petitioner, the respondent assured of opening the gate, but the assurance given by the respondent did not materialize. Hence, this writ petition. 3. When the writ petition came up for admission, Sri K. Rathanga Pani Reddy, learned standing counsel for J.N.T.U. received notice on behalf of the respondent. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that the representations submitted by him to open the gate for the convenience of the students pursuing course in the respondent college has not been considered. 6. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to consider representations submitted by the petitioner on 9-6-2008 and 14-7-2008 submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. No order as to costs. ______________________________ Justice B. Seshasayana Reddy 23rd September, 2008. KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 18758 OF 2008 23rd September, 2008.