Andhra Pradesh Court December 2000 Judgments

Adoni Std Pt Operators Welfare Association and Others Vs. Union of Ind ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2001(1)ALD274; 2001(1)ALT292

ORDERA. GOPAL REDDY, J. 1. The petitioners assail the amendment made to the policy particularly clauses (iii) to (v) of procedure for allotment of STD/1SD, PCOs., in proceedings No.31-15/98-PHB dated 29-11-99 issued by the first respondent as illegal and ultra vires the provisions of the Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India.2. The first petitioner is the Welfare Association of STD Public Telephone Operators and 2nd and 3rd petitioners are the members of the first petitioner-Association. According to the petitioners, for installing STD Public Telephone one has to incur a minimum expenditure of Rs.50,000/- for the purpose of purchasing the telephone instrument, computer billing machine besides furnishing security deposit to the satisfaction of the authorities. The said public telephone has to be installed in an area accessible to the public by obtaining premises by paying reasonable amount in addition to the expenditure incurred for renovating premises suitably. The ...

D.V. Swamy Vs. Apsrtc and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2001(1)ALD266; 2001(1)ALT379

ORDER1. This wit petition is filed for a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent-Depot Manager, ARSRTC, Anakapally Depot, Visakhapatnam District in suspending the petitioner and issuing the charge-sheet/ suspension order in proceedings N.Ty/ 95(148)/99 AKP dated 3-6-1999 and proceeding further by applying and invoking the Employees CCCA regulations, 1967 as illegal and arbitrary.2. The brief facts of the case are as under :While the petitioner was working as Conductor under the respondent-Corporation, he was kept under suspension by order dated 3-6-1999, on account of some alleged irregularities. The petitioner has also submitted his explanation on 4-8-1999. An enquiry officer was also appointed to hold a detailed enquiry and till now no action has been taken. Aggrieved by this, he has filed the present writ petition.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned order mainly on two grounds. Firstly he contended that the APSRTC Employees (Classifica...

Sultan-ul-uloom Education Society Vs. Mir Shahmat Ali Khan

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2001(1)ALD268; 2001(1)ALT222

ORDER1. The revision petitioner assails the order dated 18-9-2000 passed by the learned II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in CMA No.158 of 2000. 2. The respondent herein filed the suit OS No.1207 of 2000 on the file of the IX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the petitioner for perpetual injunction in respect of Ac.4-10 guntas of land with structures thereon, more fully described in the schedule annexed to the plaint and the concomitant petition in IANo.118 of 2000 seeking ad interim injunction pending disposal of the suit. After having heard both sides, the learned IX Junior Civil Judge by his order dated 11-4-2000 dismissed the petition. Having been aggrieved by the same, the respondent preferred an appeal in CMA No. 158 of 2000. Having heard either side the learned II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad granted injunction by allowing the appeal. The petitioner who is the respondent in both the interlocutory application as well as ...

Kodimi Rajamma Vs. Principal Secretary, Home (Courts-a) Department

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2001(1)ALT396

ORDERV. Eshwaraiah, J.1. The Petitioner-a Scheduled Tribe filed this Writ Petition to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records connected with G.O.Ms.No. 406, Home (Courts-A) Department dated 27-06-1990 and to quash the same as illegal and without jurisdiction.2. The petitioner is residing in a Scheduled Area of Nallakunta Village, Bhadrachalam Mandal, Khammam District. Right from the British rule till date a number of special enactments and regulations are made for the Scheduled areas for administration of Agency Tracts and the ordinary Civil Courts have no jurisdiction over the Scheduled Areas and the provisions of the Civil Courts are also not made applicable in those areas till recently.3. For the administration of Agency Tracts, the Scheduled Districts Act, 1874 (Act No. 14 of 1874) (hereinafter referred to as 'Scheduled Districts Act') was enacted. The said Act came into force in each of the notified Scheduled Districts and the Scheduled areas. Section 6 of the Scheduled...

District Collector, E.G. District, Kakinada and Others Vs. G.K. Jayala ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2001(1)ALD178; 2001(1)ALT166

ORDERS.R. Nayak, J1. The first respondent herein while serving as Multipurpose Health Visitor submitted an application on 18.3.1999 to the 2nd petitioner herein seeking voluntary retirement on medical invalidation ground complaining that she is a cardiac patient and she was not in a position to perform regular duties and the field work attached to her post. On the basis of the above application, the first respondent was referred to the Superintendent, Government General Hospital, Kakinada, who constituted a Medical Board on 22.5.1999 consisting of three Doctors. The Medical Board so constituted issued a certificate on 25.6.1999 certifying that the first respondent is incapacitated permanently due to ischaemic heart disease and she is permanently incapacitated for further service of any kind as a consequence of the said heart disease. As required under the Regulations the matter was referred to the District Level Committee presided over by the District Collector as the Chairman constitu...

A. Shilpa Vs. Convenor, Eamcet-1999, Jntu, Hyderabad and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2001(1)ALD121; 2001(1)ALT133

ORDER1. The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 3 in treating her candidature as falling within priority category 4 instead of priority category 3 while filling up the seats reserved for National Cadet Corps (NCC) quota in engineering colleges as arbitrary and unjust and also seeking consequential directions to respondents 1 to 3 to consider the candidature of the petitioner for admission to engineering course under NCC quota by treating her claim as falling under priority category 3 of the said quota. 2. This Court issued notice before admission on 30-12-1999. After receiving notices, the first respondent filed a counter-affidavit. When the matter was listed before me, the learned Counsel requested that the matter be disposed of at the stage ofpreliminary hearing. Accordingly, the matter was heard and is being disposed of at the admission stage. 3. The petitioner completed her two-year Intermediate c...

B. Nemichand Dugar and Sons, Gudur Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh an ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2001(1)ALD329; 2001(1)ALT515

1. This writ petition isfiled to issue a writ of mandamus or anyother appropriate writ declaring the letterNo.1985/M2/76 dated 14-9-1990 of the44th respondent, letter No.4724/M3/89 dated3-1-1991 and the letter No.4724/M4/76 dated2-1-1991 issued by the 3rd and 4threspondents respectively, as illegal and voidand direct the 4th respondent to refundRs.15,477/- to the petitioner or adjust itduring the year 1990-91 and subsequentyears and pass such other orders which aredeemed fit and proper in the circumstancesof the case. 2. It is submitted that on 22-6-1976,under the provisions of the MineralConcession Rules, 1960 (for brevity theRules), a mining lease for lime shell wasexecuted between the Government of AndhraPradesh and the petitioner for a period of20 years over an extent of Ac.1647.71 ofPulicant Lake situated at Venadu village,Tada Mandal, Nellore District. The leasewas granted to the petitioner as an incentivefor setting up an industry by the petitionerfor the manufacture of lime she...

G. Satyanaraya Vs. M. Shankar

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2001(1)ALD317; 2001(1)ALT365

ORDER1. The revision petitioner is the defendant in the suit OS No.3608 of 1998. The respondent herein is the plaintiff, who laid the said suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.59,090.25 ps. The suit was filed invoking summary jurisdiction under Order 37 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short 'the Code'). The basis for the suit claim was that the plaintiff orally agreed to carry out the construction work at the defendant's house on labour contract basis. As per the terms of the contract, the defendant should supply the material for construction and the plaintiff should engage the labourers for such construction work. Accordingly, the plaintiff carried out the construction work and prepared a statement of account for the work done. As per the statement arrived at between the plaintiff and the defendant, the defendant agreed to pay a sum of Rs.1,87,589.25 ps. and further agreed to pay 10% more of the said amount working out to Rs.18,758/-. After deducting the amounts paid by the defendant...

Government of A.P. and Another Vs. D. Sudershan Rao

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2001(1)ALD553A; 2001(1)ALT649

ORDERS.R. NAYAK, J 1. In our considered opinion, the conduct of the petitioner-authorities in these writ petitions disentitles them to any relief at the hands of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. These writ petitions are directed against the common Judgment of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (Tribunal, for short) in OA Nos.2814 and 2822 of 1988 dated 26-11-1999. The respondents herein filed the above OAs., before the Tribunal assailing the validity of the suspension orders passed against them pending trial before the ACB Court. The Tribunal with the following directions disposed of those applications:'In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into considerations the submissions made and also in the light of the judgment of the High Court in WP No.16047 of 1999 dated 25-8-1999, the official respondents are directed to speed up the enquiry against the applicants who have been under suspension since April, 1998 onwards and to conc...

General Manager, Telecom District, Telephones Dept. Vs. K. Ramachandra ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

P. Ramakrishnam Raju, President: 1. The opposite party in CD. No. 103/ 1998 on the file of the District Consumer Forum, Chittoor is the appellant. The complainant filed the C.D. stating that he applied for a telephone for his residence on 19.5.1992. On 19.5.1992 he was asked by the appellant to make deposits for a sum of Rs. 600/- before 29.6.1992. He made the said deposit on 8.6.1992 and obtained a receipt. As there was no response for a long time he approached the office of the appellant for installation of the telephone. Number of persons who applied for connection much later also got telephone connection. Therefore, he issued a legal notice on 20.11.1997. Even then there was no response and as such he approached the District Forum for relief. The appellant filed a counter stating that the complainant was asked to deposit Rs.600/- by 29.6.1992. It is also admitted that the complainant remitted the money under a receipt on 8.6.1992 and that the village of the complainant falls within...