HYDERABAD: A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar on Tuesday dismissed a writ petition and ruled that the private medical colleges cannot fill up vacant seats on their own. The petition, Mounish Kumar, had challenged a notification issued by the Kaloji Narayan Rao University of Health Sciences (KNRUHS) cancelling the MBBS admissions made by the institutions under the “stray category”. He also challenged the notification issued by the National Medical Commission (NMC) which directed that vacant MBBS seats be filled via fresh counselling in accordance with an order passed by the Supreme Court. The petitioner was admitted on September 30 by the Apollo Institute of Medical Sciences and Research through the offline mode. The petitioner contended that he was admitted in accordance with the GO passed by the state government which permits the KNRUHS to fill up the seats once all rounds of counselling are complete. He contended that the student's future must be protected. Pujitha Gorantla, NMC counsel, said that the GO was contrary to the commission regulations as well as the Supreme Court order. She said that common counselling must be held by the designated authority and the remaining seats must be filled up by the state government. The regulations framed by the NMC prevail over the rules framed by the state government, she said. The bench was of the view that the special counselling was in lieu of the directions passed by the Supreme Court and dismissed the plea of the petitioner.
Writ court will not examine title to property
The Telangana High Court yet again reiterated that title of a property cannot be declared under Article 226 of the Constitution. The bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar passed the order on a writ appeal filed by Saraf alias Toopran Madhusudhan Rao, challenging an order of the single judge which had directed the sub-registrar to receive, register and release the gift deed/sale Deed of Sarravu Lakshmana Chary, in respect of plots in Sy No. 4401A of Toopran, Siddipet district. The appellant said he was not made a party to the writ, and the order was obtained from the single judge fraudulently. The appellant said that the Toopran sub-registrar complying with the directions of the single judge had provisionally registered the land in favour of the writ petitioner who was not the owner and possessor of the property. The appellant contended that a suit was pending for cancellation of sale deeds but the trial court is unwilling to intervene as the order of a single judge was in operation. The bench disposed of the appeal by reiterating that the title of a property cannot be declared under Article 226. The bench made it clear to the civil court that the order of a single judge should not prejudice the claim of the petitioner.
