Andhra Pradesh Court October 1998 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.
Chinta Ranga Prasad and Others Vs. Asst. Director of Mines and Geology ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-30-1998
Reported in: 1998(6)ALD565
ORDER1. The petitioners made applications to the first respondent for grant of temporary permits for quarrying sand in reach No.29 VYLB i.e., 13/0 KM to 21/0 KM at Bodaskurru village in East GodavariDistrict on 8-6-1998, 19-6-1998 and 2-7-1998. The petitioners' applications are not yet considered. The impleaded fourth respondent, namely Sri Vcera Venkata Satyanarayana Agnikula Kshatriya Sand Quarry Labour Cooperative Society, Bodasakurru submitted a representation dated 26-8-1998 to the third respondent-District Collector, East Godavari district requesting him to direct the first respondent to grant temporary permits to quarry the sand in the above reach. The District Collector forwarded that representation to the first respondent with a direction to grant temporary permits to the fourth respondent. On 26-8-1998 itself, the fourth respondent filed application before the first respondent for grant of temporary permits and the first respondent by his proceedings No.3384/Q2/ 97, dated 30-...
Coromandal Fertilisers Limited, Sec'bad Vs. State of A.P. and others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-30-1998
Reported in: 1998(6)ALD752; 1998(6)ALT730
ORDERP. Venkatarama Reddi, J.1. This Tax Revision Case and the writ petition are before us pursuant to the reference made to the Full Bench by a Division Bench consisting of M.N. Rao, J (as he then was) and T.N.C. Rangarajan, J., before whom these cases came up for hearing initially. Seriously doubting the correctness of the Division Bench decision of this Court in Coramandal Lubricants v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, A.P., 102 STC 274, and expressing their prima facie view of the issue involved, the learned Judges framed the following question for answer by the Full Bench:'Whether in a transaction of sale of an undertaking as a going concern with allassets and liabilities for a lump sum without stipulating any price for individual items, the assessing authority could consider that there was a sale of goods within the meaning of Section 2(n) read with Sections 2(h) and 2(s) for charging the same to tax under Section 5 of the APGST Act.'2. After referring to the definitions of'good...
Vasamsetty Satyanarayana Vs. State of A.P. Rep. by Public Prosecutor
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-30-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)ALD(Cri)895; 1999(2)ALT29; 1999(2)ALT(Cri)79
ORDERK.B. Siddappa, J.1. This revision is directed against the judgment and sentence passed in Crl. A. No. 72/94 on the file of the III Addl. Sessions Judge, Kakinada. The petitioner was charged and found guilty for the offence under Section 16(1) read with Sections 7 and 2(ia)(m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and he was sentenced to undergo S.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-; in default to suffer S.I. for one month.2. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that the petitioner is guilty of the said offence.3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that Section 10(7) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (in short 'the Act') requires that where the Food Inspector takes any action under clause (a) of Sub-section (1), Sub-section (2), Sub-section (4) or Sub-section (6), he shall call one or more persons to be present at the time when such action is taken and take his or their signatures. In this case the Food Inspector took the...
K. Satyanarayana Murthy Vs. Secretary Regional Tranport Authority, Eas ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)ALD354; 1998(6)ALT643
ORDER1. In this batch of cases, a large scale scam resulting in the loss of public monies, both by way of loss of revenues to the Government and income to the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation has come to light.2. One Ch. Venkataralnam is the kingpin in the scam. He could run a fleet of stage carriage buses on the alleged town service routes throughout the length and breadth of East Godavari district for over four years on temporary permits under the orders of this Court by suppressing the real facts and threatening the departmental officials with contempt proceedings and also taking advantage of the liberalisation policy in issuance of permits for use of transport vehicles and actions or inactions of the agencies involved in implementation of the provisions of the Act.3. Before adverting to the factual background of this case, it will be useful to refer to certain provisions of old and new Motor Vehicles Act with regard to grant of permits for better appreciation of the ...
Midakanti Nagabhushana Reddy Vs. Midakanti Yellaiah and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-28-1998
Reported in: 1999(4)ALD41; 1999(1)ALT821
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 22-6-1993 rendered by the District Judge, Khammam in AS No.39 of 1988 reversing the judgment and decree dated 3-6-1988 passed in OS No. 193 of 1978 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Khammam.2. The appellant herein is the plaintiff and the respondents herein are the defendants in the said suit OS No.193 of 1978. For the sake of convenience, the parties are being referred as they are arrayed in the suit.3. The appellant-plaintiff filed the said suit for partition and separate possession of his l/3rd share in an extent of 8 acres in Survey Number 332 situated in Yedulapuram village in Khammam District. The case of the plaintiff is that himself, D4 and D5 are the sons of the first defendant and it constituted a joint family and that there was a partition between himself, D1, D4 and D5 in the year 1967 and all the joint family properties were divided. The present suit property i.e., an extent of 8 acres in Survey N...
G. Peddabba Naidu Vs. Secretary to Govt. Education Dept., Govt. of A.P ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-28-1998
Reported in: 1999(4)ALD82; 1999(4)ALT708
ORDER1. Rule nisi. The learned Government Pleader for School Education took notice for the respondents. The writ petition was heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner claims to be a physically handicapped person but not blind. In this writ petition lie sought a writ in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring Rule 6 of the Teachers Recruitment Notification, 1998, dated 15-3-1998 issued by the Director of School Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad for not giving relaxation of qualifying marks to the Orthopaedically handicapped candidates as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the reservation policy and for a consequential direction to the respondents to select and appoint the petitioner either as School Assistant (Social Studies) or S.G, Teacher under physically handicaped reservation without insisting the minimum qualifying marks.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that the respondents having relaxed the quali...
Chippagri Minerals and Chemicals and ors. Vs. K. Menakethara Reddy, Dy ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-28-1998
Reported in: 1998(6)ALD507; 1998(2)ALD(Cri)948; 1998(6)ALT367
ORDER1. These contempt proceedings are initiated by the petitioners alleging that the respondents had acted in deliberate violation of the order of this Court dated 16-8-1988 in Writ Petition No.10938 of 1988. The operative portion of the order of this Court reads as follows:'For the reasons stated therein, I hold that as far as lime stone is concerned, it is a major mineral and no provision in the Act or the Rules has been brought to my notice authorising the respondents to call upon the petitioners to produce certificate relating to payment of royalty on the mineral. I have held that the provisions contained in Rule 26 of the Minor Mineral Concession Rules relied on by the respondents and canvassed for acceptance by the learned Government Pleader do not have application in the present case. In the aforesaid view, it is not necessary to go into the question whether the restrictions violateArticles 19(1)(d) and (g) and 301 of theConstitution of India. 3. There shall be a declaration th...
Special Officer, Urban Land Ceilings, Nampally, Hyderabad and Others V ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-28-1998
Reported in: 1998(6)ALD824; 1998(6)ALT627
ORDERUmesh Chandra Banerjee, C.J. 1. In order to prevent concentration of urban land in the hands of a few individuals, the Legislative, in its wisdom thought it prudentto introduce in the statute book the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. From the 'statement of objects and reasons', it appears that the Act envisages prevention of speculation and profiteering in the vacant land in urban agglomeration. Admittedly, the land is scarce and there is, in fact, a tremendous pressure in that regard, specially in urban areas. This legislation of 1976 is, however, a socialistic piece of legislation and has been introduced to subserve the common social aim and objective not to allow acquisition of excess land in the urban area. The Legislature felt the necessity of having such a legislation in order to subserve out constitutional goal.2. The object of the legislation being beneficial, in our view, the endeavour of the Law-Courts also should be to give effect to the intention of the l...
J. Venkat Reddy Vs. Depot Manager, Apsrtc, Narkatpally
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-28-1998
Reported in: 1998(6)ALD689; 1998(6)ALT373
ORDER1. The petitioner is seeking a writ of Certiorari quashing the suspension order passed in proceedings No.HC/197(l)/ 97-NKP, dated 16-10-1997 passed by the respondent and to direct reinstatement of the petitioner.2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner has been working as Senior Traffic Inspector at Narkatpally Bus Depot of APSRTC since 6-8-1996. While so he was suspended on 16-10-1997. According to the petitioner he was sick at the material time and he had been to Medical Officer, RTC Dispensary at Nalgonda for a check up and he has been referred to RTC Hospital at Tarnaka for a further check up vide letter No.J/468/ 399/97-MO, Nalgonda, dated 5-7-1997. The suspension order is assailed on the ground that it is in violation of principles of natural justice; that no preliminary enquiry was conducted; that the respondent is not competent to pass the impugned order and that he has not exercised his discretion in a judicious manner.3. The petition is opposed by the respondent by ...
Asst. Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Ragareddy Dist. and anr. ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-28-1998
Reported in: 1998(6)ALD807; 1998(6)ALT706
ORDERUmesh Chandra Banerjee, C.J. 1. The modern trend as regards judicial reviewability is judicial restraint in administrative action. The law is well settled since the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Syed Yakoob v. Radhakrishnan, : [1964]5SCR64 , culminating in its decision in Tata Cellular v. Union of India, : AIR1996SC11 , that the Court docs not sit as a Court of appeal, but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was taken by an administrative authority. It is not the decision which can be reviewed, but the decision-making process that can be called in question, and in the event, the law Courts find such a process to be arbitrary and not in accordance with the known principles of law, it would be a plain exercise of judicial power to set aside the administrative action. This is, more so by reason of the fact that the Court does not have the expertise to sit over the order or correct the administrative decision, and in the event, a review of the decision is pe...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »