Dadigela Shivakumar vs The State Of Telangana
2023 Latest Caselaw 2259 Tel

     THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
                                  AND
     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

              WRIT PETITION No.25458 OF 2023

ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)

       Mr. S.Goutham, learned counsel for the petitioner.

       Mr. N.Praveen Kumar, learned Government Pleader for

Medical, Health and Family Welfare for respondent No.1.

Mr. A.Prabhakar Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Kaloji

Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences (hereinafter referred

to as 'the University') representing respondents No.2 and 3.

2. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.

3. The petitioner is an aspirant seeking admission to

MBBS/BDS course in the State of Telangana for the academic year

2023-24. The petitioner has prayed for the following relief:

"For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring that Rule 3(III)(B) of the G.O.Ms.No.114 dated 05.07.2017 is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and in violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of ::2::

India and consequently, direct the Respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner herein as Local candidate under Osmania University Category for all admission formalities in MBBS Admissions 2023-24 under competent authority quota and management quota in the light of the judgment of this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.21268 of 2023 and pass any such further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice."

4. The petitioner was treated as non-local candidate on

04.08.2023. The petitioner, however, has filed this writ petition

today i.e., 12.09.2023.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner is entitled to the benefit of common order dated

29.08.2023 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in

W.P.No.21268 of 2023 and other connected writ petitions.

6. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the

University submitted that the petitioner has approached belatedly

before this Court and admission to MBBS course is a time-bound

process in view of pronouncement of decisions of Hon'ble

Supreme Court. It is also submitted that two rounds of counselling

have already been held.

::3::

7. The issue whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of

common order dated 29.08.2023 passed in W.P.No.21268 of 2023

and other connected writ petitions or not has already been decided

by this Court vide order dated 04.09.2023 passed in W.P.No.24378

of 2023, wherein it is held that the petitioner therein is not entitled

to the relief on the ground of delay and laches. Paragraphs 9 to 11

of the aforesaid order read as under:

9. It is trite law that extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary in nature. It is also trite law that delay defeats equity and this Court in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not grant relief to an indolent person who has slept over his rights (See S.S.Balu v. State of Kerala 1, Vijay Kumar Kaul v. Union of India 2 and U.P.Power Corporation Limited v. Ram Gopal 3).

10. The normal rule is that when a particular set of persons are given relief by the Court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit and not doing so would amount to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. However, the aforesaid principle is subject to well recognized exceptions in the form of delay and laches as well as acquiescence.

The similarly situated persons who did not challenge the

(2009) 2 SCC 479

(2012) 7 SCC 610

(2021) 13 SCC 225 ::4::

wrongful action and acquiesced to the same would be treated as fence-sitters and laches and delay would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim (See State of U.P v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava 4).

11. On the touchstone of the aforesaid legal principles, we may revert to the facts of the case in hand. Admittedly, the admission to MBBS course is a time-bound process and two rounds of counselling have already been held. The petitioner was declared as non-local candidate on 02.08.2023. However, the petitioner did not take any steps to challenge the action of the respondents in treating him as non-local candidate till 31.08.2023 when the petitioner filed the writ petition. The petitioner is, therefore, guilty of inaction and has slept over his rights. In the peculiar facts of the case which relates to admission to an educational institution, even an unexplained delay of 29 days is fatal to the case of the petitioner. In case we entertain the writ petition, the process of admission to MBBS course can never be concluded. Since the petitioner is guilty of inaction and has slept over his rights and is a fence-sitter, we decline to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and decline to grant him the relief which has been granted to others who had approached this Court well within time."

8. For the aforementioned reasons, the petitioner in the instant

case is not entitled to the relief, as he at the first instance has

(2015) 1 SCC 347 ::5::

approached this Court with a delay of nearly 40 days. Therefore,

we do not find any merit in the writ petition.

9. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand

closed. No order as to costs.

___________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ

________________________ N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR, J

Date: 12.09.2023

Note: Issue C.C. today.

(B/o) Lrkm