Andhra Pradesh Court February 2000 Judgments

Dr. Ambati Balaji Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2000(1)ALD(Cri)485; 2000(1)ALT(Cri)555; I(2001)DMC97

ORDERVaman Rao, J. 1. Heard both sides.2. This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of show-cause notice dated 27.12.1999 purported to have been issued under Section 109 of Cr.P.C. by the Joint Controller and Additional District Magistrate, Kakinada to the petitioner herein directing him to appear in person before the said Additional District Magistrate for offering their explanation why they should not be ordered to execute a bond with or without sureties undertaking to be of the good behaviour for a period of one year.3. A perusal of the impugned notice would show that it is a shocking case of exercising powers for which there is no basis. The impugned show-cause notice specifically mentions that it has been issued under Section 109 of Cr.P.C. Section 109 of Cr.P.C is reproduced below for ready reference.'109. Security for good behaviour from suspected persons : When an Executive Magistrate receives information that there is within his local jurisdiction a person taki...

General Manager, Tele- Communications and Another Vs. G. Padmaja Rani

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

S. Parvatha Rao, President: 1. This is a petty matter in which the opposite parties, i.e. Telecom Department of Government of India, thinks that it would fight because Rs. 500/- compensation and Rs. 200/-costs were awarded; They themselves admitted that work order was issued in June, 1998 but it was not executed for several months. The Authorities concerned shall do well to remember that filing of appeals in petty matters like this would cost the State several times more than the compensation awarded. They should prefer appeals only in cases where some important principle is involved but not in a case like this where after giving the work order in 6/98, the execution of the work was not done for more than eight months which, on the face of it, is inexcusable. The District Forum heldas follows : There appear no justification for not executing the work- order for 6 months after 6/98. It is deficiency of service. The prayer for refund of charges collected is not pressed. Hence we direct t...

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Kothagudem, Khammam Vs. Ponnam Laxmaiah a ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: II(2000)ACC562; 2001ACJ266; 2000(2)ALD620; 2000(2)ALT568

ORDER1. These two civil revisionpetitions and three civil miscellaneous appeals are filed by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited against the common order dated 30-12-1998 passed in Original Petition Nos. 645 to 648 and 651 of 1994 on the file of the motor accidents claims Tribunal, Khammam. The appellant is the third respondent in all the above five original petitions.2. The brief facts of the case are thatthe claimants are agricultural coolies and earning Rs.35/- per day. On 27-3-1994 they were engaged by the owner of the tractor trailer bearing No.AEK 8974 and 8975 for agricultural purpose. While the claimants were so travelling in the said tractor trailer, it met with an accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor by its driver, and as a result of which the tractor trailer turned turtle and one of the agricultural coolies died and four others sustained injuries. The injured agricultural coolies and the legal heirs of thedeceased filed the above five original pet...

Md. Jahangeer Vs. State of A.P.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2000(2)ALD831; 2000(1)ALD(Cri)639; 2000(1)ALT(Cri)445; 2000CriLJ2188

ORDER1. This revision case purported to have been filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.PC challenges the order dated 5-2-2000 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bhadrachalam in Criminal MP No. 10 of 2000 in Crime No.2 of 2000 of PS Chinthoor. It is however pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor that as the matter arises from agency area, it is the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 that is applicable and not the new Criminal Procedure Code of 1973. The learned Counsel for the petitioner requests this Court to treat this case as a revision under Section 435 of Cr.PC 1898 or in the alternative as a petition under Section 561-A of Cr.PC 1898 for invoking the inherent powers of this Court for challenging the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate. It appears that the petitioner was involved in an offence punishable under Section 376-G IPC andSection 3(1)(xii) of SCs and STs (PA) Act in Crime No.2 of 2000 on the the of PS Chinthoor, Khammam District. It aiso appears that ...

A. Koteswaramma @ Meherunnisa Vs. the Principal Secretary for Higher E ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2000(3)ALT765

ORDERB.S.A. Swamy, J. 1. Questioning the validity of Memo No.89/CE.III/I/95-1, Education, dated 27.1.1995 wherein the Government issued a clarification restricting the zone of consideration to the first three senior- most Lecturers for the appointment to the post of Principal, the present Writ Petition is filed.2. In GO.Ms.No.127, Education (C.E-I) Department, dated 7.6.1993, the Government while issuing amendment to G.O.Ms.No.12, Education, dated 10.1.1992 with regard to appointment of teaching staff in Junior Colleges and other Colleges, in para 3 it is categorically stated that the posts of Principals of Degree Colleges, Law Colleges, Colleges of Education shall be filled up by recruitment by transfer from among the suitable Lecturers with 10 years of service under the same Management and in the absence of such Lecturers by direct recruitment. Thereafter the Association of Affiliated Junior College Teachers Association requested the Government to issue clear instructions to the effe...

Prof. Dr. V. Ganeshan Vs. Central Institute of English and Foreign Lan ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2000(2)ALD233; 2000(1)ALT519

ORDER1. The petitioner in the instantwrit petition challenges the office order dated 19th July, 1999 on the file of the second respondent/Vice-Chancellor, Central Institute of English and Foreign Languages, designating the third respondent herein as 'RECTOR' for a period of one year initially and delegating certain powers and duties of the Vice-Chancellor to him. The petitioner also challenges the office order dated 27th July, 1999 delegating certain further powers and duties to the third respondent. The impugned proceedings, according to the petitioner, are illegal, void, arbitrary and irrational. The proceedings are challenged on various grounds, which shall be dealt with at appropriate stage.2. It would be necessary to notice the relevant facts before adverting to the questions that fall for consideration.3. The second respondent herein issued an office order dated 19th July, 1999 designating the third respondent herein as 'RECTOR' for a period of one year initially. The order says ...

Apsrtc, Mushirabad, Hyd. Vs. Transport Commissioner, Govt. of A.P., Hy ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2000(2)ALD387; 2000(2)ALT465

1. The writ petition is filed by the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation seeking writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent and his subordinates in not stopping unauthorised vehicles plying from the notified route as arbitrary and illegal and contrary to Sections 86 and 207 of Motor Vehicles Act and for consequential direction.2. The petitioner is the Road Transport Corporation constituted under the provisions of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. It is the case of the Corporation that the Government of Andhra Pradesh notified several schemes to nationalise the bus routes in the State and almost 95 per cent of the bus routes were nationalised conferring mere monopoly to APSRTC to operate the stage carriage on the nationalised routes.3. It has been operating the buses to the total satisfaction of the commuters. It has also received number of awards for its performance at national level. It is the grievance of the Corporation that number of private jeeps, vans, ...

Y. Tatachary Vs. Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University, Hyd.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2000(2)ALD567; 2000(2)ALD567; 2000(2)ALT210; 2000(2)ALT210; [2000(85)FLR817]

ORDERM.S. Liberhan, C.J. 1. This writ appeal is directed against an interim orderpassed by the learned single Judge, pending writ petition.2. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. The facts of the case that are not disputed and necessary to dispose of the writ appeal as well as the writ petition are as follows:The appellant-writ petitioner though retired from service of the respondent-University as Horticulturist (Teacher) on 31-7-1998, he has neither been paid either pension or the gratuity, and they have been withheld without any reason. No departmental enquiry or judicial proceedings against the petitioner for any delinquency, misdemeanor or mis-conduct or either for recovery of any dues or for recovery of any money for any loss caused by him, have ever been initiated against him till date. The only ground on which the University withheld the pension and gratuity of the petitioner is that at the time of avai...

Gaddam Venkataraju Vs. Andhra Bank, Hyd. and Another

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2000(3)ALD87; 2000(3)ALT16; [2000]102CompCas189(AP)

1. The appellant is the first defendant in the suit. The appellant sold tobacco to the second respondent/ second defendant and towards the value of the said tobacco, the appellant was given a cheque dated 2-11-1987 (Ex.A1) for an amount of Rs.9,000/- by the second respondent. The cheque was drawn on the first respondent-plaintiff bank's branch at Guntur. On receipt of the cheque, the appellant presented the same to the first respondent-bank's branch at Kovvur with whom the appellant had an account. The first respondent-bank discounted the cheque and paid an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the appellant and the balance amount of Rs.3,975/- was credited to the Savings Bank account of the appellant maintained with the plaintiff-bank.2. The cheque (Ex.A1) was an account payee cheque. When the first respondent sent the cheque to the drawee bank i.e., Andhra Bank Branch at Guntur, the same was returned with an objection memostating that the drawer exceeded the arrangement with the bank and hence the...

Pasupuleti Ramarao Vs. Pothinaboina Durgarao and Another

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: II(2000)ACC200; 2001ACJ297; 2000(2)ALD752; 2000(2)ALT603; [2000(85)FLR650]

ORDER1. The applicant filed this civil miscellaneous appeal questioning the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Guntur, in WC No.247 of 1992; dated 2-9-1993, insofar as it went against the contention of the appellant in not agreeing the loss of earning capacity as 100%. The 1st respondent is the owner of the offending lorry. The 2nd respondent is the Insurance Company.2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed as a cleaner by the 1st respondent on his lorry bearing No.ADB9176 and he received personal injuries on 19-8-1992 by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment and the lorry was covered by the insurance. The appellant while travelling as the cleaner from Pamarru to Guntur on 19-8-1992, in the course of his employment the said lorry hit on his back side at Madira Hotel, Kaza village and the appellant received injuries on his thumb and also his right teg and his thumb was amputated and he underwent operation to his righ...