Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2003(1)ALD132; 2003(2)ALT24
Bilal Nazki, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the common order passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A.Nos. 3381 of 2000 and 866 of 2001, dated 5.12.2001. O.A.No. 3381 of 2000 was filed by the petitioner challenging the combined seniority list of Regional Transport Officers issued by the Transport Commissioner, A.P., Hyderabad in MemoNo. 6582/C4/2000, dated 26.5.2000 and the provisional seniority list of the Deputy Transport Commissioners issued in Memo No. 6520/C4/2000, dated 31.5.2000. The Tribunal passed interim order in O.A. No. 3381/2000 on 17.7.2000. This interim order was challenged in the High Court by 3rd respondent Sri P.Srinivas in W.P. No. 15794 of 2000. The writ petition was disposed on 16.11.2000. Pursuant to the interim order passed by the Tribunal which was later on modified by the High Court in W.P. No. 15794 of 2000 the Government of Andhra Pradesh published a provisional seniority list of Regional Transport Officers and sought o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2003(2)ALT163
ORDERD.S.R. Varma, J.1. The dispute is actually between the petitioners and the 5th respondent herein.2. This writ petition is filed challenging the common order dated 20-10-1998 passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, in O.A. Nos. 5530/1998 and 1975/1996 with VMA.No. 541/1998.3. Petitioners are the applicants in O.A.No. 5530/1998, wherein G.O.Ms. No. 427, Revenue (CT.III) Department dated 16-6-1998, by which notional seniority with effect from 3-3-1987 was sanctioned to 5th respondent and the consequential proceedings dated 8-7-1998 of the 3rd respondent - Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Warangal, was challenged and further for a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for appointment to the post of Assistant Commercial Tax Officers (for short 'A.C.T.O.') by transfer in preference to the unofficial respondent therein, who is the 5th respondent in the writ petition.4. The case of the writ petitioners in the said O.A. was that the 5th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(6)ALD642; 2002(6)ALT645
Ramesh Madhav Bapat, J. 1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a suit O.S. No. 1601 of 1983, which was decided by the II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, which was filed by the first respondent herein named Sri Kasireddy Laxminarayana Reddy (hereinafter referred to as the 'plaintiff') for dissolution of partnership firm known as Viraj Constructions, claiming to be a partner and for settlement of accounts of the firm. 2. It appears from the record that the firm was formed in the year 1964 under a deed dated 31-12-1964, which is filed on record and marked as Ex.A1, with the first respondent and four other partners. It was engaged in public works contracts. In me year 1968 another partnership was formed on 13-12-1968, which is also filed on record and marked as Ex.A2, bearing the same name with the above five partners and one more person named Sri Dasaratha Ram Reddy, who was made the Joint Managing Partner along with the first appellant herein. It is the dissolution of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2003AP121; 2003(1)ALD256
ORDERT. Meena Kumari, J.1. This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to declare the action of the respondents in preventing the sale of the publications of the petitioner, namely, Ned Prapancham and Yuva Sanchalanam in the depots belonging to respondents 1 and 2 and for a consequential direction to permit the petitioner to sell the said magazines in the premises of the RTC Complex in the State.2. The brief facts of the writ petition are as follows:3. The petitioner is the Editor and Publisher of Neti Prapancham and Yuva Sanchalanam monthly Telugu Magazines. The magazine of Neti Prapancham was registered under the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 with Registration No. 65598 of 1993. It is submitted that the said magazine came into existence in the year 1993 and is being published uninterruptedly. It is submitted that the said magazine reports contemporary issues and apart from reporting political scenario of the State and also publishes real stories of all walks of life includi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2003(1)ALT523
ORDERD.S.R. Varma, J.1. This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 4-4-2002 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') in O.A. No. 5192/2001 with VMA No. 427/2001.2. The applicant before the Tribunal is the writ petitioner. He sought to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in directing the 1st respondent through letter dated 1-6-2001 to prepare the revised seniority list in the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer (for short 'A.E.E.') in Tirupati Urban Development Authority (for short TUDA') without considering the weightage of service, without notice to the applicant and consequential order passed by the 1st respondent dated 20-7-2001 as illegal and arbitrary. The Tribunal rejected his claim. Hence, the writ petition.3. The facts leading to the filing of the O.A. and thereby the writ petition, in brief are as follows:-The writ petitioner was initially appointed as Draftsman and was promoted as Assistant Engineer (for short 'A.E.')...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2003(1)ALD635; 2003(1)ALT754
Bilal Nazki, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order dt. 4.5.1998 passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad dismissing his O.A. being O.A. No. 2030 of 1997. He has also challenged the order in ROC No. 394/96-Admn., dt. 20.12.1996 promoting 2nd respondent as Assistant Registrar as illegal and arbitrary.2. The following facts are not in dispute. That the petitioner was senior to 2nd respondent in the category-V of A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Gazetted service i.e., Court Master/Personal Assistant. His probation was declared with effect from 9.11.1983, whereas the 2nd respondent's probation was declared with effect from 14.1.1984. A seniority list of category-V officers was issued on 11.2.1992. In the said seniority list the petitioner stood at Sl.No.3 and the 2nd respondent stood at Sl.No.4. When there was a vacancy of Assistant Registrar's post, they had to be considered and after consideration, the 2nd respondent was promoted and the petitioner was rejected.3. The mai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2004(1)ALD20; 2003(6)ALT263
Dubagunta Subrahmanyam, J.1. S.A. No. 609 of 1993 is filed against the judgment dated 14.12.1992 in A.S. No. 86 of 1987 on the file of Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram, setting aside the judgment and decree dated 31.7.1987 in O.S. No. 90 of 1980 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Vizianagaram. S.A. No. 610 of 1993 is filed against the judgment dated 14.12.1992 in A.S. No. 87 of 1987 on the file of Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram, setting aside the judgment and decree dated 31.7.1987 in O.S. No. 49 of 1982 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Vizianagaram. Common judgment was passed by the Subordinate Judge, Vizianagaram, in O.S. No. 49 of 1982 and O.S. No. 90 of 1980. Similarly a common judgment was passed by the Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram, in A.S.Nos.86 and 87 of 1987. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 49 of 1982 is the appellant in S.A. No. 610 of 1993. He is the first defendant in O.S. No. 90 of 1980. He is the appellant in S.A. No. 609 of 1993. I propose to dispose ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2003(1)ALD128; 2002(6)ALT671; [2003(96)FLR442]
Bilal Nazki, J. 1. The petitioner worked in the NCC Directorate, A.P., Secunderabad as UDC and subsequently he was transferred to AMC Centre, Hyderabad in 1964. He went to Bombay in 1967 and came back on transfer to NCC Directorate, Secunderabad during the year 1990. He was transferred to Bhubaneshwar in December, 1990. He had some personal difficulties therefore he requested for his transfer to Hyderabad and on such transfer he joined at Secunderabad in February, 1992. Till his retirement he was posted in Secunderabad. According to the petitioner, he was compulsorily retired under Rule 48 of the CCS Rules, 1972 and Rule 56(j) of the Fundamental Rules by an order dated 18-8-1994. He was relieved from the post on 31-8-1994. Aggrieved by the order he filed O.A. No. 1212/94 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. On 14-3-1995 the said O.A was disposed of by the Tribunal directing the respondents to dispose of the representation dated 15-9-1994 after considering the same. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2003(1)ALD408; 2003(3)ALT751
Dubagunta Subrahmanyam, J. 1. This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 20.8.1990 in A.S. No. 91 of 1990 (A.S. No. 4 of 1984 on the file of Sub-Court, Madanapalle) on the file of Additional District Judge at Madanapalle setting aside the judgment and decree dated 29.9.1983 in O.S. No. 179 of 1982 on the file of the District Munsif, Thamballapalle. The plaintiff in the suit is the appellant. He died during the pendency of this appeal. Appellants 2 and 3 are brought on record as legal representatives of the sole appellant. 2. Necessary facts for the disposal of this appeal are as follows: A house bearing D. No. 3/74 in Puligantivandlapalle Village is the subject-matter of the suit. The appellant claims that Poola Subbarayudu purchased vacant site under sale deed Ex.A.4 dated 26.9.1927, later constructed two houses in the said vacant site, sold one house to P.W.3 Chinna Reddeppa and on 11.1.1978 under Ex.A1 Poola Subbarayudu and his son Venkataramana sold the suit propert...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2003(1)ALD667; 2003(1)ALT264
Bilal Nazki, J. 1. The controversy is very short in this case but the point raised is important. The petitioner was working as a Teacher with the respondents from 1967. He was placed under suspension by an order dated 3-10-1985. The allegations against the petitioner were that while he was working as Graduate Assistant in the Railway High School, Bitragunta he had misbehaved with a girl student who was studying in 9th class during the interval on 26-7-1985. He was asked to give his explanation. After he gave explanation a charge memo dated 18-10-1985 was served on him. There was no action for some time but the charge memo dated 18-10-1985 was cancelled by an order dated 8-4-1986. Thereafter, a fresh charge memo was issued on 25-4-1986. The earlier charge memo had been issued under Rule 11 of Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 which would attract a minor penalty, but the latter charge memo issued on 25-4-1986 was under Rule 9 of Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal)...
Tag this Judgment!