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

2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 16048

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD
B VENKATESWARA RAO – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH – Respondent
WP 28673/2024



APHC010552232024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI [3328]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MAY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA

PRASAD

WRIT PETITION NOs: 28673 of 2024 & 424 of 2025

W.P.No.28673 of 2024

Between:

1. B.V.K KOUSHIK, S/O B.VENKATESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 20

YEARS, R/O. FLAT NO. 4/3, SRINIVASAM - 1, MADHURA NAGAR COLONY, SRIKAKULAM TOWN AND DISTRICT - 532001. ANDHRA

PRADESH.

(Amended as per the Order dated 06.05.2025 in I.A.No.01 of 2025)

...PETITIONER

AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL

SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR

DISTRICT.

2. THE JAWAHAR LAI NEHRU TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY JNTU, REP.

BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR, KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI

DISTRICT.

3. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION, JAWAHAR LAI NEHRU

TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY (JNTU), KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI

DISTRICT.

4. GMR INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL. GMR

NAGAR, RAJAM - 532127, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA

PRADESH.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. RIZWAN ALI SHAIK Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. D.S. SIVADARSHAN

2. GP FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION W.P.No. 424 of 2025 Between:

1. B.V.K KOUSHIK, S/O B.VENKATESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, R/O. FLAT NO. 4/3, SRINIVASAM - 1, MADHURA NAGAR COLONY, SRIKAKULAM TOWN AND DISTRICT - 532001. ANDHRA PRADESH (Amended as per the Order dated 06.05.2025 in I.A.No.02 of 2025)

...PETITIONER AND

1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

2. THE JAWAHAR LAI NEHRU TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY JNTU, REP.

BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR, VIZIANAGARAM.

3. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION, JAWAHAR LAI NEHRU TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY (JNTU), VIZIANAGARAM.

4. GMR INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL. GMR NAGAR, RAJAM - 532127, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. RIZWAN ALI SHAIK Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. D.S. SIVADARSHAN

2. GP FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION The Court made the following:

COMMON ORAL ORDER:

Heard Sri Shaik Rizwan Ali, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and Sri D.S. Sivadarshan, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.4.

2. These two Writ Petitions raise similar questions and are related to each other.

3. The Writ Petition No.28673 of 2024 is filed seeking the following relief:

“…pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the 4th respondent in not allowing the petitioner's son by name B.V.K. Koushik to pay condonation fee as well as the Examination fee on the ground that the petitioner's son is having less percentage i.e., 7.5 percent of attendance to the required percentage of 65 percent for attending the examinations without considering the medical ground of the petitioner's son as well as the application made by the petitioner dated 10.11.2024 is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the Respondents to receive the examination fee and allow the petitioner's son to appear the 3rd semester (2nd year 1st semester) exams by duly considering medical grounds as well as the application of the petitioner dated 30.11.2024 and to pass…”

4. The Writ Petition No.424 of 2025 is also filed by the same person seeking following relief:

“…pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the 4th respondent in not allowing the petitioners son by name B.V.K. Koushik to continue further semesters (after completion of 3rd semester) to complete the course i.e., Al and DS of Bachelor of Technology (B.Tech) in 4th respondent College without any valid reasons and also not considering the future of the students (petitioners son) as well as the application made by the petitioner for continuation and to completion of further course i.e., Al and

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 Back to top