The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.4762 of 2010 Dated 29th March, 2010 Between: B.Siddartha …Petitioner And 1.Jawarhalal Nehru Technological University, rep. by its Registrar, JNTU Campus, Kukatpally, Hyderabad and 2 others. …Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.G.Dhananjai Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2: Mr.K.Rathangapani Reddy, SC for JNTU Counsel for Respondent No.3: ----- The Court made the following: Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents, in not permitting the petitioner to prosecute second and third semesters of B.Tech Engineering Course in respondent No.3-College, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri G.Dhananjai, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri K.Rathangapani Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, representing respondent Nos.1 and 2. Prior to the filing of this Writ Petition, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.24474 of 2009, when he was not permitted to appear for first semester examinations of second year B.Tech Engineering Course on the ground of shortage of attendance. This Court, by order, dated 03-12-009, disposed of the said Writ Petition giving liberty to the petitioner to make a representation to respondent No.2 and directing the latter to consider and pass appropriate order thereon. Claiming that he made a representation and no order was passed thereon and seeking relief of direction to the respondents to permit him to appear for second semester examinations of second year B.Tech Engineering Course, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. At the hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has been served with a copy of order, dated 09-02-2010, stated to have been passed by respondent No.1 wherein the request of the petitioner was rejected as he has not put in 65% of attendance. Along with the said order, respondent No.1 supplied details of the petitioner’s attendance, the correctness of which has been seriously disputed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. In my opinion, if the petitioner feels aggrieved by order, dated 09-02-2010, he shall be free to question the same by instituting separate proceedings for this purpose. In view of the passing of the above order, which is not the subject matter of this Writ petition, the prayer in this Writ Petition cannot be granted. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to question order, dated 09-02-2010, passed by respondent No.1. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.6131 of 2010, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. _____________________ C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J Dated 29th March, 2010 lur