Telangana High Court
Mahbub College Multipurpose Higher ... vs The State Of Telangana on 8 July, 2025
THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
WRIT APPEAL No.701 of 2025
JUDGMENT (Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul):
Sri D. Srinivas Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant;
Ms. Sujatha Kurapati, learned Government Pleader for Higher
Education Department, for respondent No.1; Sri Peri Prabhakar,
learned Standing Counsel for JNTU, for respondent No.2 and
Dr. Rev K.V.K. Rao, party-in-person, for respondent No.3-
Society.
2. In this intra-court appeal, the challenge is mounted to
the interlocutory order dated 27.06.2025 (Annexure-P1) passed
by a learned Single Judge in I.A.No.2 of 2025 in W.P.No.15842 of
2025. The said order reads thus:-
"Due to paucity of time and considering the
interest of the institution and the students,
there shall be interim direction to the respondent
No.2 to permit Mr. P.L. Srinivas, President of the
petitioner society and Dr. Rev K.V.K. Rao, President
of the respondent No3 - Society, to represent Swami
Vivekananda lnstitute of Technology (SVIT) and also
permit SVIT to participate in the counseling,
conducted by the respondent No.2, for intake of
students for the academic year 2025-2026 into
Engineering Courses, which is scheduled to
commence from 28.06.2025.
IA is ordered."
(Emphasis supplied)
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
impugned interlocutory order runs contrary to the consent order
passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.158 of 2025.
Learned Single Judge has erred in passing the impugned
interlocutory order.
4. The other side supported the impugned interlocutory
order.
5. In our opinion, the scope of interference against an
interlocutory order in intra-court appeal is very limited. A plain
reading of the impugned interlocutory order shows that due to
paucity of time, learned Single Judge has passed a short order.
In the present Writ Appeal itself, the appellant has pleaded that
the day, the impugned interlocutory order was passed, there was
farewell ovation of a learned Judge and therefore, there was
paucity of time. Thus, it appears that the order passed in
W.A.No.158 of 2025 was not brought to the notice of the learned
Single Judge. If an order was passed in a short hearing and the
said order requires any modification/clarification/annulment,
the proper course, in such circumstance, is to file an appropriate
application for recalling/modification/annulment/clarification of
the said order before the same Bench. The appellant, instead of
exhausting that remedy, filed the present Writ Appeal against
the impugned interlocutory order. Thus, we are not inclined to
interfere in this Writ Appeal. However, in the interest of justice,
it is observed that if the appellant prefers such application
against the impugned interlocutory order before the learned
Single Judge and makes a mention for its urgent listing, we have
no doubt that the learned Single Judge will consider such
application in accordance with law.
6. With aforesaid and without expressing any opinion on
merits of the case, this Writ Appeal is disposed of. No costs.
Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also
stand closed.
___________________
SUJOY PAUL, ACJ
____________________
RENUKA YARA, J
Date: 08.07.2025
Note:
Issue C.C. by today.
B/o.
Myk/tsr
