State of A. P. vs K. Anil Kumar - 1982 Supreme(SC) 212

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1982 Supreme(SC) 212

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V.D. TULZAPURKAR AND BAHARUL ISLAM, JJ.
State of A.P. and another, Appellants
Versus
K. Anil Kumar etc., etc. Respondent.
Civil Appeals Nos. 3689-3692 of 1982 (arising out of SLP. (Civil)Nos. 10596-99/82), D/- 22-11-1982.
Advocates appeared
Mr. L. N. Sinha, Attorney General, Mr. B. Parthasarathi, Advocate with him, for Appellant; Mr. Rajendra Chowdhury and Mr. I. Kotty Reddy, Advocates (for Nos 4 and 9), Mr. B. R. Kapoor, Advocate (for no 13 and 15), Mr. T. V. S. Chari, Advocate (for no 17) and Mr. A. Subba Rao, Mr. Guru Raj Rao and Mr. S. Markandeya, Advocates for Respondents.

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

Headnote:
Civil Appeals - Appellants and counsel for the respondents we are satisfied that impugned order of High Court is quite unjust as it serves no purpose at all - By impugned order admission of original respondents (in writ petition before High Court) has been suspended but thereby writ petitioners before High Court do not get any benefit by way of any admission to medical course and result is that seats would remain vacant till writ petition is finally disposed of - This in our view, is not a satisfactory or just solution, when an appropriate order after considering all aspects could have been passed - Held, Court are informed that original respondents have already been served with notice of writ petition - They are therefore, directed, through their counsel who are representing them before us, to appear before High Court - Counsel appearing for original, respondents makes a statement before us that remaining respondents (whose admission has been suspended) have already been served and steps will be taken to see that they also appear before High Court without delay - High Court is directed to dispose of writ petition on merits expeditiously - Appeal allowed.

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, directed, through their counsel who are representing them before us, to appear before the High Court. Counsel appearing for original, respondents Nos. 9 to 14 makes a statement before us that the remaining respondents (whose admission has been suspended) have already been served and steps will be taken to see that they also appear before the High Court without delay. High Court is directed to dispose of the writ petition on merits expeditiously.

Appeal allowed.

For Citation : AIR 1983 SC 354(1)

Vikas Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document