IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16892 of 2008 Between: Shaik Parjana Begum, D/o. Shaik Kareem Basha, Being Minor, Rep. by her Father Shaik Kareem Basha, S/o. Upamna Saheb, Aged about 42 Years, R/o. 6-80, Kotabandaveedi, Somala Village & Mandal, Chittoor District. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 3 The Rajeev Gandhi University of Knowledge Technologies, Besides Telephone Bhavan, Hyderabad - 500 004. Rep. by its Convenor/Dean. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or directin more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of mandamus: (a) declare the Section No.25 of the Rajiv Gandhi University of Knowledge Technologies Act, 2008 is unconstitutional, (b) declare the Statute 13(3) of the Schedule to the Rajiv Gandhi University of Knowledge Technologies Act, 2008 is ultra virus to Articles 14, 15 and 371-D of the Constitution of India and the Presidential Order, 1975; (c) declare Item Nos. 10 and 13 of Admission Procedure notified by the 3rd respondent University for admission into 6 years course of IIT for the year 2008- 2009 are contrary to the Statute 13(4) of the Schedule to the Rajiv Gandhi University of Knowledge Technologies Act, 2008 and illegal; (d) further set-aside the short list prepared by the 3rd respondent University for admission into 6 years course of IIT for the year 2008-2009 as in violation of Article 371-D of the Constitution of India; and (e) Consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the candidature of the petitioner for admission into 6 years course of IIIT for the year 2008-2009 basing on the merit obtained in SSC and as per Rules for Reservation and law. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M. VENKATA RAMANA REDDY Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION Counsel for Respondent No.3: GP for GAD The Court made the following: Order: (Per Hon’ble Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Learned advocate for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the petition. Permission for withdrawal of the petition is granted and the petition stands disposed of as withdrawn. __________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ. _______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. November 27, 2008 MRR