Andhra Pradesh Court March 2001 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.
M. Radhakrishna Murthy Vs. Govt. of A.P. and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-16-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)ALD330
ORDERSatya Brata Sinha, CJ1. This petition raises an interesting question as regards interpretation of Order XXIII, Rule 1 CPC vis-a-vis the power of the Administrative Tribunal to entertain an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.2. The petitioner before us was the Original Applicant before the learned Tribunal in OA No.3381 of 2000. In his application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, he prayed the Tribunal to set aside the Memo No.6582/ C4/2000, dated 26-5-2000 and Memo N0.6520/C4/2000 dated 31-5-2000 issued by the second respondent herein as illegal and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. He further prayed for a direction upon the respondents to recast the seniority by treating the applicant as senior to the unofficial respondents therein.3. Admittedly, the respondents 3 to 5 herein were placed at a higher position than the petitioner in the seniority list which was questioned before the learned Tri...
B. Savithri Vs. Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Medal Distric ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-16-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)ALD664
ORDERSatya Brata Sinha, CJ 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 23-3-1998, whereby and whereunder the application OA No.484 of 1996, filed by the petitioner seeking a declaration that she is entitled for regularisation as Typist underthe control of the respondents by setting aside the order of the respondents in discontinuing her from service in terms of impugned Lr. No. B2/1775/94, dated 9-11-1995, and consequently declare the cut-off date mentioned in G.O. Ms. No.212, F&P; dated 22-4-1994, as illegal, void, baseless and contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, besides being opposed to the principles of equity, justice, fair play, and subversive of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, was dismissed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal.2. The petitioner was appointed as Typist on daily wages basis by the respondents on 21-8-1992 in a sanctioned post and she is working as such under their control. Though, according to the petitioner, he...
V. Venkatamma Vs. Municipal Commissioner, Narasaraopet Municipality, N ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-16-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)ALD667; [2001(90)FLR427]
ORDERS.B. Sinha, CJ 1. At the request of the learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for hearing.2. This writ petition is directed against an order dated 27-4-1998 passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in OA No.2744 of 1998 whereby and whereunder the writ petitioner's application has been disposed of by the learned Tribunalwith a direction to the respondents to examine the representation of the applicant dated 20-10-1997 and pass appropriate orders within three months from the date of receipt thereof.3. Till date, the respondents have not passed any order. The petitioner, before the learned Tribunal, has questioned the action of the respondents in terminating the services of the applicant in July, 1992 and subsequent justification of their action through proceedings ROC.No.1321/95 C1, dated 15-3-1997.4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in our opinion, it is desirable that the learned Tribunal should consider the mat...
Post Master, Head Post Office, Madanapalli, Chittoor Division and Anot ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-16-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)ALD20
ORDERSatya Brata Sinha, CJ1. The question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether the offer of appointment can be reviewed at the instance of a higher authority.2. The fact of the matter is not in dispute. The respondent herein was appointed as Extra-Departmental Stamp Vendor on 10-4-1996, and he reported for duty on the same day. A higher authority i.e., petitioner No.2 herein, relying and acting upon some complaint made before him to the effect that the claim of no meritoriouscandidates was considered, directed petitioner No.1 herein to issue a show-cause notice to the respondent seeking explanation from him as to why the post should not be renotified. Accordingly, petitioner No.1 issued show-cause notice dated 14-2-1997 to the respondent herein. The respondent herein submitted his explanation to the said show-cause notice on 23-2-1997. Thereafter, petitioner No.1 passed orders dated 20-5-1997 removing the respondent herein as Extra-Departmental Stamp Ven...
K. Ramakanth and Others Vs. Government of A.P. and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-16-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)ALD100
ORDER1. This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the 1st respondent in Proceedings Memo No.15879/Pol.D/93-1, dated 26-5-1993 seeking to shift the office of the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, from Bodhan to Banswada as arbitrary and illegal and for a consequential direction not to give effect to the said memo.2. The petitioners are the prominent persons of Bodhan Town. They state that Bodhan Town has a Municipality since about 50 years and now it has a population of 1,20,000 and is one of the biggest sugar manufacturing complexes in Asia run by Nizam Sugar Factory, a Government of Andhra Pradesh Undertaking. The office of the Revenue Divisional Officer and other important Functionaries of the District are located in Bodhan since the time of Nizam and that there is a Sub-Court, Sub-Treasury Office and the Office of the Divisional Commercial Tax Officer in Bodhan Town and it has also the facility of STD.3. While so the petitioners came to know through the news ...
Shaik Abdul Shukur Vs. Tumuluri Ramavadhani
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-16-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)ALT69
ORDERT. Ch. Surya Rao, J.1. The petitioner seeks to assail the Order dated 18-02-2000 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, in R.C.C.No. 1 of 1999.2. The revision petitioner is the respondent in the said Appeal. The respondent herein is the petitioner in R.C.C.No. 25 of 1995 filed before the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller, Ongole, seeking eviction of the respondent therein the revision petitioner. It is better to refer the parties as they were originally arrayed so as to avoid confusion.3. The petitioner filed the petition in R.C.C. 25 of 1995 seeking eviction of the respondent on the ground that the respondent committed wilful default in paying the rents from October, 1994 to March, 1995 (inclusive of both the months). That eviction petition was resisted by the respondent on the ground that he encroached the petition schedule site about 33 years back along with some other sites and put up a thatched shed thereon; and that he had been living in t...
Ushodaya Publications, Hyderabad Vs. Commissioner, Municipal Corporati ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-15-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)ALD173; 2001(2)ALT662
ORDERS.B. Sinha, CJ 1. The question which arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether the possession of a land in occupation of a lessee can be acquired by the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad without recourse to compulsory acquisition only on the basis of the consent given by the landlady. The petitioner herein is a company. It is a tenant of the premises No.6-3-569 and 570 Somajiguda, Hyderabad. One Suit M. Ramanamma is the landlady of the said premises. The petitioner was granted lease in respect of the aforementioned premises for establishing a printing press in respect whereof it obtained licence from the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. The Inspector of Factories has also granted licence in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner herein had also been publishing two dailies 'Eenadu and News Time' from the said premises. The building structures, hoards and the watchman room allegedly were constructed by the petitioner on leasehold land at its own cost. Wit...
Apsrtc, Musheerabad, Hyd. Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Hyd. ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-15-2001
Reported in: II(2001)ACC760; II(2002)ACC337; 2001(3)ALD235; 2001(2)ALT532
ORDERS.B. Sinha, C.J.1. All these writ petitions involving consideration of common questions of fact and law were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Except WP No.2157 of 1995, all the writ petitions were filed by the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'the Corporation') aggrieved by the orders of the A.P. Transport Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad allowing the appeals filed by the private bus operators against the orders of the respective Regional Transport Authorities rejecting their applications for grant of pucca stage carriage permits on town service route at various places in the State.3. In WP Nos. 17953 of 1998 and 15538 of 1998, the Tribunal allowed the appeals following the decision of this Court in A.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Ch. Satyanarayana Raju, 1988 (I) APLJ 119. In WP No.1548 of 1995, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the operator following the principles laid down by the Apex Court in regard to liberalisat...
Sanjay Alloys (P) Ltd. Vs. Government of India and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-15-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)ALD818
ORDER1. The petitioner filed this petition seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondents in not granting the Central Subsidy to the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to grant Central Subsidy and pass further orders in the interest of justice.2. The petitioner is a small scale industrial unit for manufacture of corrosion resistant castings, heat resistant castings, steel alloy and alloy iron castings and was granted provisional SSI registration in Certificate No.01-02-0481-PROV/SSI/Rural, dated 25-7-1986, in LDis No.4773/BB/86 dated 25-7-1986 by the third respondent initially for one year and valid upto 24-7-1987 and licence was revalidated upto 23-7-1988. When further revalidation was refused, petitioner filed WP No.5574 of 1989 and the same was allowed on 30-4-1990 and subsequently, the petitioner was granted permanent SSI registration. The petitionerunit has gone into commercial production with effect from 8-12-1989.3. The pe...
Syed. Mohd. Ghouse Vs. Noorunnisa Begum and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-14-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)ALD734; 2001(1)ALD(Cri)590; 2001(1)ALT(Cri)322; 2001CriLJ2028; II(2001)DMC454
ORDER1. The petitioner assails the docket order dated 18-8-2000 passed by the learned Judge. Family Court of Hyderabad. The revision petitioner is the respondent in MC No.13 of 1998 pending on the file of the Family Court, Hyderabad. The respondents 1 and 2 herein are the petitioners in the said MC No. 13 of 1998. They filed the petition under Section 125 of the Cr.PC, seeking maintenance on the premise that the first pelitioner married the respondent in the year 1983 as per Muslim Personal Law at Hyderabad, and during their lawful wedlock, the second petitioner-minor was born to them, and that the respondent after the marriage ill-treated the first petitioner and harassed her demanding more dowry from the parents and eventually deserted both the petitioners. It is further averred in the petition that the respondent being the Superintendent in Anwar-ul-uloom Boys High School, Nampally, drawing a monthly salary of Rs.10,000/-, besides income he is getting from tuitions in an amount of R...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »