Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
J.V.Narasimha Raju vs M/S.Sagi Rama Krishnam Raju ... on 6 February, 2024
Author: R. Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R. Raghunandan Rao
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
Writ Appeal No.1313 of 2023
J.V. Narasimha Raju,
S/o.Venkata Narasimha Raju,
Aged 62 years, Occ:Retd.,
R/o.D.No.27-17-55/11C,
Flat No.105m, Lotus Regency (C),
ASR Nagar, Bhimavaram - 534 202,
W.G. District, Andhra Pradesh.
..Appellant
Versus
M/s. Sagi Rama Krishnam Raju Engineering College
Chinna Ammiram, Bhimavaram, W.G. District,
Andhra Pradesh,
Rep., by its Secretary-cum-Correspondent & two others.
..Respondents
Counsel for the appellant : Smt Thota Suneetha
Counsel for respondent No.1 : Mr. A. Krishnam Raju
Counsel for respondent No.2 : Government Pleader for Higher
Education.
Counsel for respondent No.3 : Smt M. Uma Devi, Standing
Counsel.
Dt.:06.02.2024
P.C:
The present Letters Patent appeal has been preferred against
the judgment and order, dated 06.07.2023 passed in IA.No.1 of
2023 in W.P.No.15428 of 2023.
HCJ & RRR,J
WA_1313_2023
2. The appellant herein filed a complaint before the All
India Council for Technical Education [AICTE] highlighting certain
irregularities committed by respondent No.1 College viz., M/s. Sagi
Rama Krishnam Raju Engineering College in regard to the building
violations. It was also alleged that students undergoing M.Tech
courses were reflected as faculty members, misuse of funds and
manipulation of record in that regard and further that there was no
separate MCA Department which was otherwise a pre-requisite as
per AICTE statute.
It appears that pursuant to the complaint so filed by the
appellant herein, proceedings were initiated by AICTE which were
challenged by the 1st respondent College by way of W.P.No.11013 of
2021 before the learned single Judge of this Court, who disposed of
the petition by virtue of judgment and order, dated 01.10.2021,
with a direction to the AICTE - 1st respondent in the
aforementioned petition to consider and determine whether the
appellant herein had the locus standi to file the complaint against
the said Engineering College.
The AICTE by virtue of communication, dated 11.04.2022,
based upon the complaint filed by the appellant herein, directed the
1st respondent Engineering College to appear before the Standing
HCJ & RRR,J
WA_1313_2023
Complaint Scrutiny Committee along with supporting documents
related to the complaint filed by the complainant.
The aforementioned proceedings became the subject matter of
challenge yet again in WP.No.15428 of 2023 in which by virtue of
order, dated 06.07.2023, which is the order impugned, the learned
single Judge found a prima facie case in favour of the petitioner and
stayed the further proceedings before the AICTE primarily on the
ground that the AICTE had failed to determine the preliminary
issue with regard to the locus of the appellant herein to file the
complaint before the AICTE and that the enquiry was being
proceeded with without such a determination.
3. It appears that even when the order impugned was
passed as early as on 06.07.2023, the appellant herein has not even
filed the reply to the writ petition much less has the appellant
herein filed any application seeking the vacation of the interim
orders passed by the learned single Judge.
4. Be that as it may, since the matter is already subjudice
before the learned single Judge and only a prima facie view has
been expressed, we do not wish to interfere in the order impugned.
It would be open to the appellant herein to file objections to the writ
petition seeking vacation/modification of the interim order so
HCJ & RRR,J
WA_1313_2023
passed, which is impugned in the present appeal. However, we wish
to add that the pendency of the proceedings before the learned
single Judge would not prevent the AICTE, in the meantime, to
determine the locus standi of the appellant herein to file the
complaint before the AICTE. Appropriate orders upon such a
consideration, if passed, would be brought to the notice of the
learned single Judge by the appellant.
5. The Writ Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as
to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J
Vjl
HCJ & RRR,J
WA_1313_2023
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
Dt: 06.02.2024
Vjl
