SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1982 Supreme(SC) 212

BAHARUL ISLAM, V.D.TULZAPURKAR
State of A. P. – Appellant
Versus
K. Anil Kumar – Respondent


Advocates:
A.SUBBA RAO, B.PARTHASARTHY, B.R.KAPUR, GUM RAJ RAO, I.KOTI REDDY, L.N.Sinha, RAJENDRA CHAUDHARY, S.Markandaya, T.V.S.CHARI

ORDER :- Leave granted.

2. After hearing the learned Attorney General for the appellants and counsel for the respondents we are satisfied that the impugned order of the High Court is quite unjust as it serves no purpose at all. By the impugned order admission of original respondents Nos. 7 to 17 (in the writ petition before the High Court) has been suspended but thereby the writ petitioners before the High Court do not get any benefit by way of any admission to the medical course and the result is that the seats would remain vacant till the writ petition is finally disposed of. This in our view, is not a satisfactory or just solution, when an appropriate order after considering all the aspects could have been passed. We, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order suspending the admission of original respondents Nos. 7 to 17. Counsel for writ petitioners made a grievance before us that respondents whose admission has been suspended are avoiding service and are thereby delaying the disposal of the writ petition. We are informed that original respondents Nos. 7, 9, 13, 14, 15 and 17 have already been served with notice of the writ petition. They are therefore, directe



Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top