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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 16228

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
Sri Chaitanya Junior College rep. – Appellant
Versus
The Government of A.P. rep. by its – Respondent
WP 32679/2013



THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI WRIT PETITION Nos.27302 OF 2012 & 32679 OF 2013

10TH MARCH, 2026 W.P.No.27302 OF 2012 Between:

Sri Chaitanya Junior College Rep. by its Correspondent, Ch.Subba Rao … Petitioner AND The Government of A.P., Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Higher Education And 3 others …Respondents W.P.No.32679 OF 2013 The Government of A.P., Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Higher Education And 4 others …Respondents

COMMON ORDER:

These Writ Petitions are filed seeking to “ to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to G.O. Rt. No. 478 dated 18.07.2012 and Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings Rc. No.19120/E3-3/1995-96 dated 06.09.2013, and set aside the same as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India;

and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue to run the college in the subject premises without interference, declare the action of permitting the 4th respondent to run a college in the same premises as illegal, restore the students to the petitioner’s college, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.”

2. Since the parties are one and the same in both the cases, and the matter being similar in nature, these petitions are disposed of by way of this common order.

3. Heard M/s.P.Amarender, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Higher Education, Ms.M.Vidyavathi, Sri D.L.Pandu and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for respondents. Perused the record.

4.1 The brief facts of the case of the petitioner is that he is the correspondent of the petitioner college and also the secretary of Bharathi Educational Society and the petitioner was initially granted provisional permission to run Vikas Junior College at Atmakur, Warangal, later shifted to Kothagudem, Khammam by Government Order. The college received re-affiliation from the Board of Intermediate to Vikas Junior College, as Chaitanya Haritha Junior College, Kothagudem, Khammam and since then it is functioning in the premises bearing H.No.3-62/1 from 2000 to 2007 and in H.No.9- 19/A in the present premises from 2007 onwards and eventually becoming Chaitanya Junior College.

4.2 The petitioner challenges the shifting of another college (4th respondent) to the same premises, filing W.P. No. 27302 of 2012 and this Court suspended the G.O.Rt.No.478, dt.18.07.2012 vide orders dt.31.08.2012 and ultimately it was dismissed on 31.12.2012, leading to W.A. No. 359 of 2013, which was disposed of on 04.06.2013, by remanding the matter to the learned single Judge to examine the legality of shifting and name change.

4.3 While the issue was pending, permission was granted permitting the 4th respondent/Chaitanya Haritha Junior College to run his college as JVS Chaitanya Junior College, with changed name. The petitioner then filed W.P. No. 32679 of 2013 and obtained interim stay on 19.11.2013, wherein the 4th respondent challenged the same in W.A. No. 1864 of 2013, resulting in remand for reconsideration of interim relief.

4.4 It is submitted that under Rule 14(3) of the A.P. Educational Institutions Rules, 1987, shifting a college to another locality is prohibited, and any unauthorized shift results in loss of permission or recognition. The petitioner has been running Chaitanya Junior College at Lakshmidevipally, Kothagudem since 2000 with valid affiliations. However, contrary to the rules, authorities permitted the 4th respondent to shift Sri Chaitanya Haritha Junior College to the same premises, even adopting a similar name, while the issue of shifting was already sub judice.

4.5 The permission granted to the 4th respondent for the academic year 2013–14 was issued without proper application of mind and violates established law, including the ruling in Bharathi Degree College vs. State of A.P. (2013), which held tha

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