Andhra Pradesh Court September 1998 Judgments

TwIn City Jewellers Association and ors. Vs. State of A.P. and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1998(5)ALD567; 1998(5)ALT405

ORDERUmesh Chandra Banerjee, C.J. 1.It is a well settled principle of law that statutesshould be interpreted as far as practicable so as to respect the legislative intent. The validity of the statute is normally presumed and unless invalidity is writ large the question of declaring the same to be invalid would not arise. Similar is the situation as regards the retrospective element in the statute. Normally, retrospectivity is an artificial element and cannot be termed to be a proper legislative exercise unless, however, the Legislature deems it expedient clearly and explicilly to have the operation retrospectively since the true principle is the lex prospicit non respicit (law looks forward and not back). Hence, retrospectivity being artificial and artificiality are generally repugnant to law, it therefore follows that the Courts apply the general presumption that an enactment is not intended to have retrospective effect. The power, however, of the Legislature to produce such an effect...

P.V. Surender Babu Vs. Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Chittoor

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1998(5)ALD549; 1998(5)ALT640

ORDER1. At times it becomes necessary for the Court to remind itself about the self-imposed restraints and limitations in exercise of the power granted to the Court by the Constitution under Article 226. The Court can take judicial notice of the fact that large number of writ petitions are filed in this Courtby persons without exhausting statutory alternative remedies or other remedies available to them. Article 226 empowers High Courts to issue directions, orders or writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari or any of them. Such directions, orders or writs may be issued for the enforcement of fundamental rights or for any other purpose. It is well established that the remedy provided for in Article 226 of the Constitution is a discretionary remedy and the High Court has always the discretion to refuse to grant such a relief in certain circumstances even/though a legal right might have been infringed. Availability of an alternative remedy i...

M.V.V. Satyanarayana Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1998(5)ALD582; 1998(5)ALT262

1. The short but interesting question involved in this application is whether the application under Section 11 of theArbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, 'the Arbitration Act' is barred by limitation?2. The applicant was entrusted the work of unloading of 1108.56 MTs of Rails on SC-WD Section, between Gullaguda - Chittigidda and Nagalapalli Sankarapalli Stations in connection with doubling of track between Telapur - Gullaguda and Gullaguda-Vikarabad stations in the year 1988 and the applicant had completed the work in the same year. The letter of acceptance was issued by the respondents on 20-9-90 and the agreement for the aforesaid work already done was entered into between the applicant and the respondents on 28-2-1991. The value of the work was Rs.88,684/-. The applicant had submitted his bill dated 2-6-1991 for payment to the respondents. The applicant submitted a no-claim certificate and thereafter, the final payment was made on 20-5-1994. The security deposit of Rs....

T. Surendranath Babu Vs. Vice-chairman and Managing Director, Apsrtc a ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1998(5)ALD588; 1998(6)ALT118

ORDER1. In this writ petition, thepetitioner seeks to challenge the seniority list dated 20-9-1984 according to which, he was placed at Serial No.7 and the fourth respondent was placed at serial No. 1 in the category of Artisan Grade-II.2. The petitioner was initially appointed as a cleaner in the APSRTC on 19-6-1975. He was subsequently promoted as Helper on 1-4-1977 and further promoted as ArtisanGrade-II (Electrician) on 30-9-77. The fourth respondent was temporarily appointed under Rule 17 of the Recruitment Regulations of the Corporation as Artisan Grade-II on 23-11-76. His services were however regularised vide proceedings dated 2-9-1978 with effect from the date of his initial appointment i.e., 23-11-1976. The provisional seniority list was circulated on 26-4-1982 in which the fourth respondent was placed at Serial No.1 and the petitioner was placed at Serial No.7. The petitioner is stated to have filed objections to the said provisional seniority list. The final seniority list ...

N. Suryanarayana Reddy Vs. State of A.P. and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1998(5)ALD585; 1998(5)ALT230

ORDER1. After hearing the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, as well asGovernment Pleader for Roads & Buildings, I do not find any valid grounds to entertain this writ petition.2. In this writ petition the petitioner seeks to question the validity of the order dated 19-8-1998 by which the third respondent rejected the representation of the petitioner dated 12-8-1998 for taking into consideration the rates quoted by him in figures instead of the rates in words in the tender filed by him. It may be mentioned that the petitioner has earlier approached this Court by filing WP No.23094 of 1998 for declaring the action of the respondents particularly respondents 2 and 3 in not considering the said representation as arbitrary and illegal. That writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 20-8-1998 recording the submission made by the learned Government Pleader that the representation of the petitioner dated 12-8-1998 has been considered and rejected and the rejection order also has been co...

M. Gangadhara Rao Vs. Bapurao Naidu, Revenue Divisional Officer, Amala ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1998(6)ALD132; 1998(6)ALT8

ORDER1. This contempt case is filed by the petitioner by contending that the respondents flouted the orders of this Court in Writ Petition No.15301 of 1996 dated 5-8-1996 as modified in review WPMP No.3674 of 1997, dated 20-2-1997 under Sections 10 - 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. In other words the action of the respondents in not apportioning the compensation for the lands belonging to the Temple which arc under the enjoyment and possession of the petitioner as a lessee and stands acquired for public purpose by the Government, is assailed in this Writ Petition as well as Contempt Case.2. The claim of the petitioner ^s contested by the respondents by stating that by the time the notification was issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act on 28-1-1996, the petitioner suffered an order of eviction and thereby he lost the right of cultivating tenant. Hence the question of paying compensation to the petitioner by apportioning the compensation received by the landlord docs no...

V. Chandralekha Vs. Accounts Officer (T.R.), O/O, General Manager, Tel ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

S. Parvatha Rao, President: 1. These two appeals arise out of the same order i.e., order dated 5.2.1998 of the East Godavari District Forum in O.P. No. 404/1995. F.A. No. 463/1998 is preferred by the complainant and F.A. No. 474/1998 is preferred by the opposite parties in that O.P. 2. It is the case of the complainant that her telephone bearing No. 509 of Pithapuram was disconnected on 21.2.1995 after issuance of Memo No. TRA/TC/RSVII/24 dated 2.2.1995 wherein the opposite parties demanded payment of 3 bills in respect of that telephone: (1) bill dated 9.1.1995 for Rs. 340/-; (2) bill dated 11.11.1994 for Rs. 474/-; and (3) bill dated 11.9.1994 for Rs. 551/-. In that memo the complainant was warned that if the amounts were not paid and no reply was received by 10.2.1995 her telephone would be disconnected. According to the complainant she already paid the said bills by way of demand drafts drawn on S.B.I., Kakinada taken from Pithapuram Branch of State Bank of India DD bearing Nos. 21...

A. Rajeswar Vs. Mananging Director, Apsrtc and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1998(5)ALD409; 1998(5)ALT136

ORDER1. Rule nisi. Smt. A. Vyiayanthi, learned Standing Counsel took notice for the respondents. The Writ Petition was heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner joined service of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation as Conductor on ad hoc basis with effect from 24-5-1984. The petitioner's services were regularised w.e.f., 1-6-1985 by the Corporation acting under Regulation 13 (7)of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Pay and Allowances) Regulations. 1964. The grievance of the petitioner is that his services in the cadre of Conductor ought to have been regularised w.e.f. the date of his initial appointment i.e. 24-5-1984. The question whether the petitioner is entitled to the said relief is fully covered by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in APSRTC v. P.T. Rao and others, : 1998(3)ALD45 . In para 5 of the said judgment, the Division Bench held that the workmen arc entitled to the regularisation o...

A. Rama Rao Vs. Deputy General Manager and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1998(5)ALD553; 1998(5)ALT354

1. The writ petition is filed seeking writ of Certiorari and quash the order of removal passed by the 1st respondent dated 21-5-1990 and confirmed by the appellate authority-2nd respondent dated 17-8-1990 and for consequential relief.2. The petitioner was a native of Vegeswarapuram village near Polavaram Agency area in West Godavari District. According to him, he completed Intermediate in Government Junior College, Kovvur and B.Com. at Bhimavaram. According to him he was bom on 1-7-1954 and he belonged to 'Medari' Community. It is his case that he applied for scholarship as a Backward Class candidate when he was studying B.Com. However, the District Social Welfare Officer did not grant scholarship on the ground that 'Medari' Community falls under Schedule Tribe and therefore he cannot claim scholarship under BC Category. Accordingly, the scholarship was stopped for one year. He was however permitted to apply for scholarship under the ST category for 2nd year B.Com. and the same was rec...

Neelam Williams Vs. Harun Pasha

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1998(6)ALD244; 1998(6)ALT26

ORDER1. Heard.2. The petitioner is the tenant. The respondent-landlord filed a case in RCC No.3 of 1989 on the file of Principal District Munsif (Rent Controller), Eluru against tlie petitioner-tenant for eviction on the grounds of wilful default and bona fide requirement. The Rent Controller gave a finding in favour of the landlord stating that the landlord has proved wilful default, but farther held that he is not entitled for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement in view of Section 10(4)(ii) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (in short 'the Act'), as the building in question is being used as an educational institute and it has been recognised by the Government. The tenant did not prefer any appeal against that order. However, the landlord preferred an appeal before the appellate Court in CMA No.2 of 1994, challenging the order of the Rent Controller in RCC No.3 of 1989, refusing the eviction on the ground that there is an educational institu...