HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6679 of 2010 DATE:25.03.2010 Between: S.S.R. College of Education, represented By its Secretary and Correspondent, Kothapeta, E.G.Dt. … Petitioner and Regional Joint Director of School Education, Kakinada, E.G.Dt., and another … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6679 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is a College of Education. The 2nd respondent was admitted against one of the seats for the current academic year. It appears, there is some dispute, as to the amount of fee payable by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner alleges that when the 2nd respondent was insisted on payment of balance of fee, she brought her father, who is an Advocate, and the latter, in turn, started threatening and abusing the College Administration. This has resulted in submission of complaints by the father of the 2nd respondent. The authorities of the Education Department also have called for remarks of the petitioner. 2. On a representation, dated 05.02.2010, made on behalf of the 2nd respondent that the petitioner is preventing the 2nd respondent from attending classes, the 1st respondent passed an order, dated 19.03.2010, directing the petitioner to take the 2nd respondent back on college rolls and submit compliance report. The same is challenged in this writ petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Education. 4. Obviously, on account of the rigid stands taken by the father of the 2nd respondent, on one hand, and the petitioner, on the other hand, the simple issue has led to unwarranted proportions. In case, the 2nd respondent is due any fee, the only thing open to the petitioner was to inform her by way of a communication and, if necessary, to insist on payment of the same before the hall-ticket was issued. As of now, no order suspending or restraining the 2nd respondent was passed. Therefore, she could not have been prevented by the petitioner from attending classes. Though the enquiry, that is said to be in progress, is superfluous and unwarranted, the 1st respondent had to intervene, to ensure that the 2nd respondent is prevented from attending classes. This Court does not find any basis to interfere with the same. 5. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. However, it is directed that the matter between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent shall be guided strictly by the relevant provisions of law in the context of payment of fee or issuance of no due certificate. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J 25th March, 2010. CBS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6679 of 2010 (Dismissed) 25th March, 2010 CBS