Andhra Pradesh Court November 1967 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Hari Naidu Vs. the Government of Andhra Pradesh Home (Transport-ii) De ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-15-1967
Reported in: AIR1968AP319
1. The petitioner who is a Transport Operator with a permit to ply a vehicle on the route Chittoor-Arcot applied to the Regional Transport Authority, Chittoor for variation of the route. He wanted the route to commence from Kasl-ralla instead of Chittoor. Chittoor being en-route. This proposal for variation was notified in the usual manner and no representations were received by the Regional Transport Authority under Section 57(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Notwithstanding the fact that none objected to the variation, the Regional Transport Authority rejected the application without assigning any reasons. On an appeal preferred by the petitioner the State Transport Authority allowed the appeal and granted the variation. Thereupon the 3rd respondent who had made no representations either to the Regional Transport Authority or to the State Transport Authority preferred a Revision Petition to the Government of Andhra Pradesh under Sec-tion 64-A of the Act. The Government allowed the Revis...
Cirivisetti Sastrulu and ors. Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and ors ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-04-1967
Reported in: AIR1969AP59; 1969CriLJ157
ORDER1. These Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the issue of writs of prohibition restraining the respondents from taking action in pursuance of notices issued to the petitioners under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1964 and declaring that the prosecutions launched under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act of 1955 are illegal. 2. Though the writ petitions have been filed by different Counsel, they arise from the same or similar facts. The main argument was addressed by the learned Counsel, Mr. D. Narasa Raju, in W. P. No. 1546 of 1964 and the decision in that Writ Petition will govern the other Writ Petitions except W. P. No. 1785 of 1964, which will be dealt with separately. 3. W. P. No. 1546 of 1964: The petitioners are rice millers in Krishna district. In exercise of the delegated powers under Section 5 of the Essential Commodities Act (Central Act X of 1955), the State of Andhra Pradesh issue...
D. Rama Subba Reddy Vs. P.V.S. Rama Das and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-04-1967
Reported in: 1970CriLJ83
ORDERKondaiah, J.1. This revision by the Secretary of All India Postal Employees Union, Class III. Kurnool Division is directed against the judgment of the Sessions Judge Kurnool in Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 1966 confirming the conviction of the petitioner for the offence of defamation.2. The brief and material facts that led to this revision are as follows:-The petitioner in his capacity, as the Secretary of All India Postal Employees Union, Class III, Kurnool Division submitted a memorandum to the Director General of Posts and Telegraphs against the then Superintendent of Post Offices, Kurnool for his alleged acts of omissions and commissions. Under the head 'Favouritism', it was mentioned about the appointment of the complainant in the following terms:The post of Wireless Inspector, Kurnool has been given temporarily to an official who has Court attachment to his salary, who is heavily indebted, who is declared unfit to work in cash counters and who is used to intemperate habits.......
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›