Andhra Pradesh Court March 1992 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.
S. Ramu Vs. Executive Officer, T.T. Devasthanam and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-09-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)ALT217; (1993)ILLJ286AP
ORDERS.C. Pratap, C.J.1. This appeal by the original with petitioner is directed against the dismissal of the writ petition by the learned single Judge by his order dt. 22nd November, 1991. 2. Hearing counsel on either side and going through the impugned order, no interference therewith is warranted. 3. The appellant applied for the post of Class IV Attender in the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam (TTD). The stand of the Devasthanam has been that, as and when it becomes necessary to appoint Attenders in Class-IV category, the procedure followed is it notify the vacancies of the posts and consider only those who are sponsored by the Employment Exchange. We see nothing illegal or invalid therein. On the contrary, it regulates the process of recruitment and reduces to the minimum, if not extinguishes, the scope for the any arbitrariness in the matter of such appointments. 4. In Union of India v. N. Haragopal 1987 - I - LLJ - 545 it has been observed by the Supreme Court thus (p.551) : 'Whil...
M. Sriramulu Vs. the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board, Represent ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-09-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)ALT183
Mohd. Sardar Ali Khan, J.1. This Writ Appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned single Judge passed in W.P. No. 7283 of 1986, dated 341-1986.2. The controversy arising in the writ petition, which was dismissed by the learned single judge, is about the legality of B.P.Ms. No. 247 dated 17-3-1986 by virtue of which relaxation has been given in favour of respondents 2 to 31, who are non-graduates, in matters of promotion to the next higher posts.3. The back-ground to the present controversy coming to the fore is that prior to the formation of Personnel and General Services Cells, the personnel functions at Head-quarters of the A.P. State Electricity Board were being dealt with by different agencies, i.e., Board Secretariat, Chief Engineer Electricity Generation, Chief Engineer (Civil), Financial Adviser and Chief Controller of Accounts. It was felt that this was resulting in duplication of work and causing delay in matters which require urgent attention. Therefore, the matter w...
Rumana Begum Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-06-1992
Reported in: 1992(2)ALT74; 1992CriLJ3512
Sivaraman Nair, J.1. The 1st respondent passed an order dt. 30-8-1991 directing that Shri Mohammad Ishaq, S/o Hasan Mohammad, should be detained under section 3(1)(iv) of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling activities Act, 1974, for short the 'COFEPOSA Act'. Simultaneously, the grounds for detention were communicated to the detenu in the letter of the 1st respondent of the same date. Petitioner representated his case before the State Advisory Board, which ratified the order of detention. The wife of the petitioner has filed this petition for the issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus and to call for the records of the 1st respondent, leading to the detention order and quash the same, so as to set the detenu at liberty. 2. The facts leading to the petition are the following : Officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Madras and the Customs & Central Excise Officers of Vijayawada intercepted Khaja Nazmuddin alias Nizam. On being questioned, he disclosed his name...
Vadla Balaiah Vs. K. Raghavender Reddy and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-06-1992
Reported in: 1992(2)ALT95; 1992CriLJ4019
ORDER1. The interesting point that arises in this revision petition is whether paper publication can be issued when it is brought to the notice of the Court that in spite of sending notices either by registered post or acknowledgement due service could not be effected. 2. Sri Ella Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no procedure prescribed either under the Criminal Prodedure Code or Criminal Rules of Practice with regard to publication of notices in newspaper. 3. On 27-8-1990 my learned brother Bhaskar Rao, J. passed following order : 'The petitioner's counsel is permitted to send the notices by registered post with acknowledgement due Post after two weeks'. That order not having been complied with, the matter was posted before my learned brother N. D. Patnaik, J. on 9-4-91, who directed thus : 'The learned counsel for the petitioner represents that though he sent notice by registered post, he is not having the acknowledgement with him now. The petitioner is...
Kapitan Distilleries and ors. Vs. the State of A.P. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-06-1992
Reported in: 1992(2)ALT336
P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.1. The amendment made to Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Distillery Rules, 1970 and Rule 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Brewery Rules, 1970 enhancing the licence fee for obtaining distillery and brewery licence as the case may be, by G.O.Ms.No. 74 Revenue (Ex.III) Department dt.1-2-1990 are being challenged in this batch of writ petitions.2. The petitioners in this batch of writ petitions are either the owners of distilleries or breweries. 'Distillery' means the manufactory where wines or Indian liquors other than arrack, beer or toddy are produced. (Vide Rule 2(c) of the A.P. Distillery Rules). 'Brewery' is the place where beer is manufactured, stored, or issued (Vide Rule 2(b) of the A.P. Brewery Rules). Rule 5(1) of the A.P. Distillery Rules provides for grant of distillery licence by the Excise Commissioner on the fulfilment of the conditions prescribed in Rule 4 and on payment of prescribed licence fee. In the year 1970, when the rules were first fram...
Padmalaya and ors. Vs. A.V. Krishna Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-06-1992
Reported in: 1992(2)ALT425
ORDEREswara Prasad, J.1. The petitioners are accused of offences under Sections 120B and 420 IPC and Sections 276(C), 277, 278B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The first petitioner is a firm and the 2nd and 3rd petitioners are its partners.2. For the assessment year 1981-82, the return of income of the first petitioner firm was delivered to the Income Tax Officer, Vijayawada on or before 31-3-82. The return was signed and verified by the third petitioner. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was found that certain inadmissible expenditures were shown. The assessment was completed by the Income-tax Officer, 'B' Ward, Vijayawada, after adding back some inadmissible expenses. Subsequently the file was transferred to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle Madras, who was re-designated as Asst. Commissioner, Central Circle II(4) Madras. Later, searches were conducted under Section 132 of the Income tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) at the business premises of the firm's petitioner...
Deluxe Bar and ors. Vs. the Excise Superintendent and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-06-1992
Reported in: 1992(2)ALT314
P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.1. The increase in the licence-fee for various categories of liquor licences by G.O.Ms.No. 160 Revenue (Ex.III) dated 3-3-1990 has led to the filing of this batch of writ petitions.2. The petitioners herein, by and large, are holders of wholesale licence (FL 15), retail licence (FL 24), bar licence (FL 17) and storage licence for godowns (FL 19). A few of them are having distributor's licence (FL 27). The grant of these licences is governed by the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Foreign Liquor and Indian Liquor Rules, 1970 issued under the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' and 'the Act' respectively.3. Section 15 of the Act enjoins that no person shall sell or buy any intoxicant except under the authority and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a licence granted in this behalf. Under Section 17 of the Act, the Government may, subject to such conditions as they may deem fit to impose, grant for a fixed period to a...
J. Narasimha Murthy Vs. District Treasury Officer and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-04-1992
Reported in: 1992(2)ALT428
ORDERB. Subhashan Reddy, J.1. This writ petition is filed claiming issue of writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay the salary to the petitioner as per the revised scales of pay effected during the years 1978 and 1986 and as contained in G.O.Ms.No. 288, Finance & Planning dt.17-11-1986. The case of the petitioner is that he was a Judicial Officer of the rank of District Judge, Grade-II but nevertheless he held the post of Chairman, Industrial Tribunal, Guntur and later as Chairman, Industrial Tribunal, Visakhapatnam for the period from 27-4-83 till he retired on 30-9-87. It is pertinent to mention that the scales of pay of a District Judge of Grade-II Category is less than that of District Judge, Grade-I. It may be true that the said distinction in the scales of pay is maintained when the respective officers discharged the functions as District Judges Grade-I and Grade-II respectively. Now the question for consideration is whether the same scales of pay be payable to Grade-II...
Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Tekumallavaraha Narasim ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-04-1992
Reported in: 1992(2)ALT721
G. Radhakrishna Rao, J.1. An extent of Acs.19-78 cents belonging to the claimants was acquired for the purpose of construction of the steel plant. Out of this land Acs. 15-00 is a tope and the remaining is vacant land i.e., Acs.4-78 cents, without any trees. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded a sum of Rs. 1,037-93 p. per hectare so far as the vacant land is concerned and with regard to the remaining land capitalisation method has been applied and awarded a sum of Rs. 1,85,037-00. Being dissatisfied with that the claimants filed an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for reference to the Civil Court. The matter has been referred and the same was numbered as O.P.No. 167/83. After reference the son of the claimant is examined as P.W.1. P.Ws.2,3 and 4 were examined to prove the income that is being derived from the land. P.W-5 is an expert on the agricultural side. Exs.A-1 to A-8 were marked. On behalf of the referring Officer none were examined. The learned Subordin...
Maddina Subbamma Vs. Maddina Venkateswarlu and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-03-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)ALT286
ORDEREswara Prasad, J.1. The petitioner is the wife of the 1st respondent. She filed M.C. No. 46/87 in the court of the II Additional Munsif Magistrate Bapatla for grant of maintenance. It was opposed by the 1st respondent on the ground that he obtained a decree for restitution of conjugal rights and that the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of maintenance as she refused to join him as per the decree of the Court.2. The learned II Additional Munsif Magistrate Bapatla allowed the petition holding that there are justifiable grounds for the petitioner to stay away from the 1st respondent and that she was afraid of the 1st respondent as there was no security to her life in his hands. He further held that the 1st respondent abused the petitioner in filthy language. The learned magistrate found that the 1st respondent is possessed of 6 acres of land yielding an income of Rs. 25,000/- per year and that the petitioner has no property whatsoever and that she has no means or ability to ma...