Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(2)ALD346; 2002(2)ALT555
Ar. Lakshmanan, C.J. 1. Heard Sri Gopalakrishna Kalanidhi, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Ramesh Ranganathan, Additional Advocate-General appearing for the respondents.2. The first writ petition, viz., WP No.20928 of 2000 was filed by the Wild Life Protection Society represented by its Joint Secretary impleading the State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Principal Secretary, Forests and Environment Department, Commissioner of Police, Minister for Forests and Environment, Chief Conservator of Forests and Union of India represented by its Special Chief Secretary, Forests and Environment, New Delhi as respondents. The prayer in this writ petition is as follows :'......to issue a writ, Order or Orders,more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, directing the 1st, 3rd and 4th respondents to constitute a special vigilanceand enforcement cell to the administered under the control of Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi to place a detailed report a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(2)ALD377; 2002(2)ALT235
Ar. Lakshmanan, C.J. 1. The petitioners, who are 30 in number, have filed this writ petition seeking a writ ofmandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not merging the special pay in accordance with G.O. Ms. No. 216, Finance and Planning (FW.TA) Department, dated 27-5-1993 to the post of Section Officer with effect from 1-4-1993, is arbitrary, illegal and unenforceable.2. The 1st petitioner, who is working as Section Officer (Librarian) in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, on behalf of himself and other petitioners, filed on oath an affidavit in support of the writ petition stating that the non-merging of the special pay in terms of G.O. Ms. No.216, dated 27-5-1993 and denying the benefit thereof to the petitioners, is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.3. Heard Sri Samineni Kishore, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Home for 2nd respondent, the learned Government Pleader for Finance and Planning for 3rd respo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(3)ALD18
Motital B. Naik, J. 1. The petitioner, claims to be a civil contractor, r/o Luxettipet of Adilabad District, approaches this Court invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in demanding tax to the tune of Rs. 1,11,284/-, stated to be the arrears of sales tax for the assessment years 1993-94 and 1994-95 in relation to Licence No. 4/ 92-97, dated 29-9-1992 issued in Form FL 24 Retail License for the sale of kinds of Indian Liquors, Foreign Liquors and Beer in the name of M/s. Sri Sai Wines, Luxettipet, Adilabad District, as illegal, arbitrary and to set aside the same. 2. Before we proceed to decide the issue raised in the writ petition, it wouldbe appropriate to note few facts relevant for the purpose of deciding the controversy with regard to the liability to pay tax by the petitioner to the Commercial Tax Department. 3. Under Form FL 24 Retail Licence for the sale of al...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(3)ALT391
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. The Writ Petition is filed for a writ, order or direction more in the nature of mandamus declaring the rowdy-sheet proceedings launched and continued by the respondents-authorities as illegal and unconstitutional and for a consequential direction to remove the petitioner's name from the Rowdy Sheet Register and to pass appropriate orders.2. The case of the petitioner is that he is a law abiding citizen and a businessman running business in fancy article's and jewellery under the name and style of Sri Fancy and Ladies Corner at Peddapuram, commanding good reputation in the society. It was also stated that one M.V. Chandrasekhar of Peddapuram village filed private complaint before the Judicial first Class Magistrate, Peddapuram against 3rd respondent - Station House Officer,Peddapuram Police Station Under Sections 379, 380 and 352 IPC and the same was referred to Circle Inspector, Peddapuram for investigation and the Circle Inspector is investigating the case in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(2)ALT(Cri)288
ORDERGopala Krishna Tamada, J.1. This revision is filed against the judgments of the courts below wherein the petitioner was convicted for the alleged offence punishable under sections 16(1)(a)(i), 7(ii) and 2(ix)(a)(e) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short the Act) and ultimately was found guilty of the said offence and accordingly, sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for six months and pay a fine of Rs.1000/- , in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months.2. Admittedly, the Sanitary Inspector who was the complainant visited the shop of the petitioner on 11-11-1993 and on suspicion collected 3 sample bottles of oil in accordance with section 10 of the Act. Subsequently, one of the sample bottle was sent to the Public Analyst on 12-11-1993 for analysis and opinion. The Public Analyst opined that the sample oil was adulterated and submitted a report date 24-12-1993 which is marked as Ex.P-9. Pursuant to that in the month of August, on 26-8-1994, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(3)ALT256
ORDERB. Sudershan Reddy, J.1. The 3rd respondent-Superintendent of Police, Karimnagar by his order dated 16-7-1992 terminated the probation of the petitioner herein with effect from 15-7-1992 with one month pay under Rule 24 (a)(ii) of A.P. State and Subordinate Services Rules (for short 'the Rules'). Since the whole controversy centres around some expressions used in the said proceedings, we consider it appropriate to refer the whole of the order before we further proceed in the matter and the same is to the following effect:'NoA1/93/1056/89-92District Police Office, D.O. No. 1536/92 Karimnagar, Dt. 16-7-92District Orders:The probation of P.C. 2045 K. Sudershan of P.S. Keshavapatnam was last extended for a period of six months w.e.f. 25-8-1991 vide D.O. No. 2355/91 dt.19-11-1991 for his unsatisfactory work during the probation period. While extending the probation of P.C. he was advised to improve his work in his own interest, but he has not shown any improvement in his work. The CI a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(1)ALD(Cri)667; 2002(2)ALT(Cri)85; II(2002)DMC749
Elipe Dharma Rao, J.1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29.2.1996 passed by the learned IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, in SC No. 147 of 1995, whereby the learned Sessions Judge found the appellant-accused No. 1 guilty for the offence under Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code (for brevity the Code), convicted thereof and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years, which is the minimum mandatory imprisonment for the said offence, but acquitted the accused 2 to 4 of the said charge.2. The case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is that Manjula - the deceased was the wife of A-l, A-2 is the younger brother of A-l and A-3 is the mother of appellant, A-4 is the daughter of A-3. On 9.11.1991 on receipt of information from Gandhi Hospital, LW-17 Shiv Kumar Yadav, went to hospital and recorded the statement of the deceased, who was admitted therein, according to which the appellant married the deceased and at that time, cash of R...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(2)ALD268
ORDER1. In all these writ petitions the petitioners have residences at Subhash Road, Secunderabad. They are either owners or tenants. The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad (MCH), it is alleged proposed to widen the said road and therefore sought to obtain letters of consent from the petitioners for occupying the land. The petitioners therefore approached this Court seeking a declaration that such action of the MCH without taking recourse to Sections 146 and 147 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (the HMC Act' for brevity) is illegal and unconstitutional.2. The tenants also submit that even where the landlords have given consent for acquiring their lands for road widening, in the absence of such consent from the tenants, MCH cannot forcibly demolish or evict the tenants acting on the letters of consent issued by the landlords. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Full Bench of this Court in Ushodaya Publications v. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, AIR 20...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(2)ALD494; 2002(3)ALT84; (2002)IIILLJ944AP
Ar. Lakshmanan, C.J. 1. Heard Mr. D.V. Sitharama Murthy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mrs. M. Bhaskara Lakshmi, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for issue of a writ of certiorari seeking to quash the proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent-District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar in Order No. 246/92/Adm/2972 dated 26-4-1995 removing the petitioner from service, as confirmed, on appeal, by the 1st respondent in its proceedings Roc No. 2829/95/C.II/1 dated 20-6-1996 holding the same as illegal and arbitrary and for a consequential direction to the 2nd respondent to reinstate him into service with all attendant benefits. 3. The petitioner was appointed as Bailiff and was posted at District Court, Mahabubnagar on 3-4-1984. On 1-9-1989 he was transferred to Munsif Magistrate's Court, Kalwakurthy. On 4-7-1992 the District Munsif, Kalwakurthi passed an order of attachme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(3)ALD640; 2002(2)ALT16; I(2003)DMC109
Ramesh Madhav Bapat, J. 1. The appellant herein is the wife. The respondent herein is the husband. The husband-respondent herein filed OP No. 340 of 1996 in the Family Court at Secmiderabad for divorce under Section 13(1)(a), 13(1)(ib) and 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act.The learned Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad heard the matter on merits and was pleased to allow the petition and the marriage between the appellant herein and the respondent herein solemnised on 11-12-1994 was dissolved by a decree of divorce. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Family Court, the wife-appellant herein has filed the present appeal. 2. The averments made in the original petition can briefly be narrated as follows: The parties herein are referred to as 'petitioner and respondent' as arrayed in the original petition. The husband-petitioner stated in his petition that he is the son of Col and Mrs. T.R. Reddy, He is M.Sc with Horticulture. He is working with M/s, Harrison Malayalam Kerala. The res...
Tag this Judgment!