Skip to content


State of A.P. and anr. Vs. K. Anil Kumar Etc. Etc. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectConstitution
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Appeal Nos. 3689-3692 of 1982 (Arising out of SLP. (Civil) Nos. 10596-99 of 1982)
Judge
Reported inAIR1983SC354; 1982(2)SCALE1370; 1982(14)LC878(SC)
AppellantState of A.P. and anr.
RespondentK. Anil Kumar Etc. Etc.
DispositionAppeals allowed
Excerpt:
- - 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......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.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. 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.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //