IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.11378 OF 2004 Dated: August 22, 2007 Between: Santhiniketan Degree College, owned and managed by Sr. Ramakrishna Educational Society, represented by its Secretary & Correspondent, Baireddy Lakshma Reddy, Sathupally, Khammam District, Andhra Pradesh. … Petitioner And Andhra Pradesh State Council of Higher Education, Represented by its Secretary, P.B.No.34, Saifabad, Hyderabad – 500 004. … Respondent Order: This writ petition was filed in the year 2004 seeking Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not considering the application of the petitioner, a college, for starting a Postgraduate course for the academic year 2003-04 as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 3. In response to the notification issued by the Andhra Pradesh State Council of Higher Education, petitioner made an application for starting a Postgraduate course in Science. When the matter was referred to the University in the area in which the petitioner-college is located, i.e. Kakatiya University, an inspection committee was constituted to evaluate accommodation and other facilities provided by the petitioner for starting the said course in the academic year 2003-04. The inspection committee visited the petitioner-college and submitted a report stating there is no sufficient faculty for science subjects and there is also no well-equipped laboratory. Based on the same, the application of the petitioner was not considered. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, himself, submits the application of the petitioner was considered and permission was granted to start the aforementioned course for subsequent academic years. 5. Though learned counsel for the petitioner alleges across the bar that no inspection, as averred by the respondent in the counter affidavit, was made, however, no reply affidavit has been filed controverting the averments of the respondent in the counter affidavit. As much as it is stated that petitioner-college was not having adequate facilities, well-equipped laboratory and sufficient number of faculty, no direction as sought for can be issued. 6. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY. August 22, 2007 MRR