Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1994AP225; 1994(1)ALT376
ORDER1. This public interest litigation is filed by Jagriti, a non-political, secular and rural development organisation registered under the Societies Registration Act. It claims that its activities extend to a number of villages in Totapalli, Guduru Mandal and Indukurpet Mandal of Nellore District it claims that it runs 100 non-formal educational centres in 63 villages in Nellore and Kavali Divisions. The relief which the petitioner seeks are -- a declaration that Sub-sec. (3) of S. 1 and S. 2 of the A. P. (Andhra Area) Prohibition Act, 1937 and clause (b) of sub-sec. (2) of S. 1 of A. P. Excise Act, 1968, are illegal and void. It seeks a consequential declaration that G.O.Ms. No. 966 Revenue dt. 6-10-1969 and G.O.Ms, No. 989 Revenue dt. 11-10-1969 are void. A further declaration which it seeks is that Ss. 15, 17, 18, 20, 33 and 67 of the A. P. Excise Act, 1968, and the rules made thereunder in so far as they enable the sale of liquor, are violative of Articles 21, 40 and 47 read wit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1994(2)ALT87; (1994)119CTR(AP)184; [1994]207ITR508(AP)
S.V. Maruthi, J. 1. Reference Case No. 126 of 1992 arises out of the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in I. T. A. No. 1822/(Hyd) of 1990 dated March 23, 1992. Messrs. V. V. Trans-investments (P.) Ltd., Hyderabad, aggrieved by the said order made a Reference Application No. 101/(Hyd) of 1992, before the Appellate Tribunal to refer to this court certain questions of law for the opinion of this court. 2. Writ Petitions Nos. 5408, 6102 and 6141 of 1993 are filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Assessment) - III Hyderabad, Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Assessments), Special Range-3, Hyderabad, and the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Investigation Circle-I (1), Hyderabad, respectively, on behalf of the Department, for a writ of certiorari or order or direction, to call for the records relating to I. T. A. No. 1845/(Hyd) of 1990, for the assessment year 1988-89, I. T. A. No. 822/(Hyd) of 1992 for the assessment year 1989-89, respectively, passed by the Income Ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1994(1)ALT672
1. This writ Appeal is filed challenging the order of the learned Single Judge in W. P. No. 9692 of 1992 dt 2.11.92, rejecting the contention of the appellant therein that he has to be continue in service till he attains the age of superannuation as per new date of birth. The appellant joined the service of the respondent-Devasthanam in the year 1959. The appellant initiated proceedings in the respondent-Devasthanams in the year 1992. 2. Observing silence for more than thirty years regarding his date of birth and initiating some proceedings with a view to get his service extended, clearly disentitle the appellant for change of date of birth as claimed by him. The appellant is, therefore, estopped from denying the date of birth furnished at the time of joining the service in the year 1959. We see no merits in the writ appeal. The writ appeal is, accordingly, dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1994(1)ALT570
V. Sivaraman Nair, J.1. Dealers in Indian Made Foreign Liquor are the petitioners. They assail the amendment to the A.P. Foreign Liquor & Indian Liquor Rules, 1970 by issue of G.O.Ms. No. 948, Revenue (Excise-III), Department, dt.30-9-1993, as arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory illegal, and devoid of jurisdiction.2. Petitioners hold licences issued under Rule 23 of the A.P. Foreign Liquor & Indian Liquor Rules, 1970; such licences were issued prior to the impugned amendment. The period of validity of the licences is five years from 1-10-1992 to 30-9-1997. Some of the petitioners hold F. L. 15 licences issued under Rule 23(i) - wholesale licence for the sale of all kinds of Indian/Foreign Liquor and/or Beer not to be consumed on the premises ('Off licence): F.L. 17 licence under 23(iii) - Bar Licence for the sale of all kinds of Indian liquor, Foreign liquor and / or Beer to be consumed on the premises of Bars, hotels and restaurants ('On' licence): F.L. 20 licences - issued under ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1994(1)ALT549
S. Nainar Sundaram, C.J.1. Respondents 1 and 2 in Writ Petition No. 9092 of 1993 are the appellants in this Writ Appeal. Petitioners 1 to 5 in the writ petition are respondents 1 to 5 in this writ appeal. Respondent No. 3 in the writ petition is respondent No. 6 in this writ appeal. Convenience suggests that we should adopt the nomenclature assigned to the parties in the writ petition while we refer to them in the Course of this pronouncement of ours.2. The petitioners have come to this Court by way of the writ petition putting forth the following prayer:'For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit the petitioners herein prayer that the Honourable Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of mandamus declaring (i) the rules/regulations of the 2nd respondent which do not provide for personal verification and revaluation of the answer scripts is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, (ii) to direct the 2nd respond...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1994(2)ALT59
ORDERP. Venkatarama Reddi, J.1. The petitioner whose authorisation to run Fair Price Shop No. 1 of Sundarada Village was cancelled by the 3rd respondent by an order dated 24-9-1993, has filed this writ petition seeking for a declaration that the notification dated 4-11-1993 issued by the 3rd respondent inviting applications from the Women Candidates for the same Fair Price Shop during the pendency of the revision petition filed before the 1st respondent as illegal and arbitrary.2. The authorisation was cancelled on the sole ground that an order under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act was passed by the Joint Collector on 27-3-1993 confiscating the seized stock. The appeal filed against the said order was summarily rejected by the Joint Collector by an order dated 3-11-1993 stating that 'Section 6A case against him was proved'. A revision has been filed against the said order before the District Collector on 9-12-1993 and the same is pending. It appears that the District Collec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1994(1)ALT60; 1994CriLJ1469
N.D. Patnaik, J.1. This writ petition is filed to issue a writ of habeas corpus to search for one person by name Masi wherever he is held by the police in the State of Andhra Pradesh and to produce him before this Court and set him at liberty and pass appropriate orders. 2. The writ petition is filed by Prof. S. Seshaiah, who is working as a Professor in the Department of Law in Sri. Krishnadevaraya University, Ananthapur based upon a newspaper report dated 12-10-1993 published in the Indian Express. The petitioner alleged in his affidavit that one Vijaya, 17 years old, tribal girl, who belongs to a remote village called 'Athiyur' near Gingee of Cuddalore District, Tamil Nadu State, is said to have been raped by police men of Pondicherry on July 29, 1993; that for reasons unknown the father of the victim girl by name Masi was forcibly taken away to Tirupathi by the police men of Andhra Pradesh on the night of 2-10-1993 and therefore requested this Court to issue a writ of habeas corpus...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1994(1)ALT208; 1994(1)ALT208; [1995(70)FLR104]; (1994)IILLJ481AP; (1994)IILLJ481SC
ORDERS. Parvatha Rao, J. 1. The petitioner was employed as Conductor in Andhra Pradesh state Road Transport Corporation and was working in Anantapur Depot with effect from 11-4-1978. While the petitioner was conducting but with registration No. AAZ 2735 plying on the route Karakamukkala to Anantapur on 17-1-1984, a check was made and irregularities were found to have been committed by him. Enquiry was initiated against him and he was charge-sheeted on 27-1-1984 and the following three charges were framed against him. '1. For having failed to issue ticket to a batch of 13 passengers even after collecting the requisite fare of Rs. 16-90 from them who were travelling from Uravakonda to Sivarampeta ex-stages 12 to 9. 2. For having violated the rule issue and start. 3. For having closed the tray numbers of all denomination in the S. R., upto the stage No. 9 without completing the ticket issues referred at charge No. 1'. The petitioner submitted his explanation and after holding due enquiry,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1994(1)ALT1; 1994CriLJ1025
M.N. Rao, J. 1. These two writ petitions are inter-linked : the relief claimed in both is one and the same viz., for production of the alleged detenu - Captain (Mrs.) Latha Sharma - and her two infant children - Vaman and Pavan - aged 3 and 12 years respectively from the custody of Army authorities and to set them liberty, Because of the commonality of facts and law, we think it proper to dispose of both the writ petition by this common judgment. 2. W.P. No. 13366 of 1993 was filed by Dr. P. C. Kakar, husband of the alleged detenu - Captain (Mrs) Latha Sharma and W.P. No. 14776 of 1993 by Dr. P. C. Kakar and the detenu, Captain Latha Sharma. In the first writ petition two learned advocates - M/s. S. R. Sanku and N. N. Guru Gopal filed vakalat but during the pendency of the writ petition, they withdrew from the case. The latter writ petition was filed by Dr. P. C. Kakar as party-in-person. It is not necessary to go into the controversy as to the circumstances under which the two learned...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1994(1)ALT259
ORDERImmaneni Panduranga Rao, J.1. This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for declaration that the taking of cognizance, of C.C. No. 185 of 1993 by the learned Xllth Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, is illegal and void and to quash the entire proceedings in the said C.C.2. The petitioners figure as accused Nos. 1 and 2 in C.C. No. 185 of 1993 on the file of the XII Metroplitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and the offence alleged against them is one under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that since the offence is exclusively triable by a specially constituted Court manned by an officer in the cadre of District and Sessions Judge at Hyderabad to deal with the specific offences, the learned Magistrate is not competent to take cognizance of the offence and to proceed with the trial of the same. In support of his contention he relied upon G.O. Rt. No 734 Home (Courts-A) Department dated 13-3-1981, under which the Court of the Sp...
Tag this Judgment!