Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1998(6)ALD204; 1998(5)ALT498
ORDERUmesh Chandra Benerjee, CJ. 1. The doctrine of judicial reviewability has a special significant in public law, particularly in the countries having a written constitution, since in common acceptation, the doctrine of judicial review works through the remedies of appeal and revision as prescribed by the prevalent procedural law. The Constitution is a legal instrument and this law is superior in status to the laws made by the Legislature. Dr. Basu in his Tagore Law Lectures very succinctly stated the broad features of the doctrine to the following effect:'Where the Constitution operates as a highcr law, any act which transgresses the mandates of that higher law becomes unconstitutional and since not only the Executive but the Legislature itself is limited by that higher law, as in the USA or in India, a legislative act, too, would be unconstitutional and invalid when it contravenes the Constitution. The peculiarity of judicial review in the Constitutional sphere is that this power i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1998(5)ALD702; 1998(6)ALT37
ORDER1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counselfor the University and the learned Standing Counsel for the Anti-Corruption Bureau.2. The petitioner voluntarily retired in the year 1995 from the services of the University. Thereafter some difficulty arose in paying the pension and pensionary benefits to him. Therefore, he filed this writ petition.3. Counter was filed by the University in which it was stated that there were some allegations against the petitioner and the matter has been referred to the Anti-Corruption Bureau to investigate. Therefore, the petitioner was not paid his gratuity however, he is being regularly paid his pension. After the counter was filed by the University, the respondent-University also moved an application praying that the Anti-Corruption Bureau be also arrayed as party. That application was allowed and the learned Standing Counsel for the Anti-Corruption Bureau also appeared today and he was heard. He submitted a copy of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1998(5)ALD644; 1998(6)ALT140
ORDER1. Petitioners in these writ petitions have purchased certain extents of land in Survey Nos. 28/AA and 28/2 of Jillellaguda village, Hyderabad East Taluq, Rangareddy district under registered sale deeds executed between 18-2-1980 and 4-8-1981. The Land Acquisition Officer, HUDA, acquired an extent of Ac.43-02 cents situated in villages Behramulguda, Jillelaguda and Kharmanghat including these lands and Kharmanghat under a draft notification published on 24-12-1983. Although petitioners are registered owners, no notices were served on them. They are in possession of the land having raised some constructions. However, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award No. 10 of 86 dated 23-9-1986 without reference to the petitioners' possession and compensation has been deposited in Civil Court in OP No.122 of 1987. In fact, petitioners made representations before the respondent on 10-2-1989 after coming to know about the acquisition proceedings and have sought for a fresh enquiry. The La...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1998(6)ALD17; 1998(6)ALT408
ORDERMotilal B. Naik, J 1. This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus to direct the respondents to produce Vamsee Krishna, the son of the petitioner, aged 6 months, before this Court and to deliver the custody of the child to her. 2. At the threshold itself we have heard Smt. C Jayashree Sarathy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Learned Counsel tried to persuade us by contending that a writ of Habeas Corpus could still be entertained by this Court for causing production of the child before this Court and after due enquiry the Court can grant custody of the child to the petitioner keeping in view the paramount welfare of the child. In support of her submission she cited the decision of the Supreme Court in Veena Kapoor vs . Varinder Kumar Kapoor, : AIR1982SC792 . Relying on the principle laid down by the apex Court in the above decision, the learned Counsel contended that the respondents coul...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
S. Parvatha Rao, President: 1. We do not find much merit in this appeal preferred by the second opposite party in O.P. No. 7/1996 questioning the order of the Medak District Forum at Sanga Reddy dated 28.6.1996 in that opposite party directing it to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 16,800, but for interest thereon @ 18% per annum from 26.6.1995, the date of death, till the date of payment. The complainant is the first respondent before us and the first opposite party before the District Forum is the second respondent before us. 2. Though notice was served on the appellant it did not choose to appear before the District Forum and file its version/counter. On the basis of the material on record the District Forum allowed the claim of the complainant holding that the record produced proved that the complainants husband Balamallu died in an accident. He had taken welfare endowment certificate on 7.5.1993 for Rs. 16,800/- face value from the second respondent before us i.e., Peerless Gen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1998(5)ALD722; 1998(2)ALD(Cri)629; 1998(5)ALT339
ORDERP. Venkatamama Reddi, J.1. This Writ Appeal is preferred by the Government and the City Police Commissioner against the judgment of the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 12428 of 1996. It was prayed therein that the action of the third respondent (third appellant herein) in seeking to sell stray animals in public auction on 1-7-1996 shall be declared as illegal and arbitrary and that a consequential direction should be issued not to dispose of the stray animals impounded by the Police. The writ petitioners claim to be the Organisations or individuals interested in the protection and well-being of animals. They have come forward to maintain the animals handed over to them. In other words, they do not want the cattle detained by the Police for causing obstruction to be auctioned when no one came forward to claim them. It is the unrebutted case of the respondent-Organisations that they are maintaining Goshalas/cattle pounds for the animals - cows, buffaloes and bulls. It is a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1998(5)ALD516
ORDERMotilal B. Naik, J.1. This writ of Habeas Corpus is filed before us seeking a direction to the respondents to produce the alleged detenu - Smt. Farahana Begum w/o Mohd Mahmood Khan, Aged: about 19 years; and consequently direct the respondents to set her at liberty forthwith and other orders in the circumstances of the case.2. Yesterday i.e., 2-9-1998, when the writ petition came up for consideration, on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior Counsel, representing Mr. Muhammed Abdul Qadir, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that Smt.Farahana Begum is married to Mohd. Mahmood Khan in the month of May, 1998 as per the law of the community of both the parties and the marriage has been solemnized. The mother of the said Smt. Farahana Begum filed a complaint before the Station House Officer, Moghalpura Police Station alleging that her daughter has been kidnapped and also making further allegations and requiring the police to make enquiry, on which ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
S. Parvatha Rao, President: 1.This appeal has been preferred by the complainant in O.P. No. 1345/1995 on the file of the Hyderabad District Forum questioning the dismissal of his complaint by order dated 13.10.1997 of that Forum. The opposite party in that O.P. i.e., Corporation Bank, M.G. Road Branch, Secunderabad, is the respondent before us. 2. The complainant took a small locker bearing No. 65 on hire basis from the respondent in January, 1977. According to him the initial rent of the locker was Rs. 15/- per annum and periodically it was enhanced to Rs. 100/- per annum and he paid the rent of Rs. 100/- on 31.12.1994 for the one year period from January, 1995 to the respondent. The respondent addressed letter dated 4.8.1995 demanding Rs. 735 / - towards arrears of rent for that locker. The complainant sought clarification by letter dated 31.8.1995. He received reply dated 4.9.1995 from the respondent stating that the rent of the locker had been enhanced with effect from 15.9.1994 an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
S. Parvatha Rao, President: 1.This appeal is preferred by the opposite party in O.P. No. 112/1996 questioning the order of the Adilabad District Forum in that O.P. dated 12.11.1996. The complainant in that O.P. is the respondent before us. 2. The case of the complainant was that his Miyubishi van of 1995 make was involved in an accident on 2.1.1996. At that time it was covered by a policy issued by the appellant which was in force for the period commencing from 11.9.1995 to 10.9.1996. This is not in dispute. The appellant immediately acted on the report of the accident given by the complainant and appointed a Surveyor Mr. S. Swaran Singh to give a preliminary report after inspection on the spot of the accident. He surveyed as evidenced by his Survey Fee Bill dated 4.1.1996 marked as Ex.B-4. Thereafter a second Surveyor of the appellant, Mr. K. Vedavyasulu surveyed and gave a detailed report dated 27.1.1996 marked as Ex.B-1 wherein he assessed the damage and the amount payable under the...
Tag this Judgment!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...
Tag this Judgment!