Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2012(5)ALD414
(Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order, direction mostly one, which is in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the cancellation of saw Mill licence of the petitioner by the 1st Respondent in proceedings Rc.No.2124/S2/94, dt.25-7-2001 and confirmed by the 2nd respondent in order Rc.No.4503/02/M3, dt.18-3-2003 as illegal, irregular, improper, unjustified, unconstitutional and un sustainable and set aside the same holding that the petitioner is entitled to carry on the business of running the saw mill as per licence No.25/99.) This writ petition is filed assailing the orders in Rc.No.2124/S2/94, dated 25.7.2001 passed by the 1st respondent-Divisional Forest Officer, Khammam Division, cancelling the Saw Mill licence of the petitioner, confirmed by the 2nd respondent-Conservator of Forest, Khammam Circle, Khammam vide proceedings Rc....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
The appellant herein filed W.P.No.5350 of 2012 seeking a Writ of Quo Warrantoto call upon the 3rd respondent to show-cause as to under what authority he isholding and continuing in a public office namely Principal FAC in Government Nizamia Tibbi College, Charminar, Hyderabad and to prevent him to continue further in the said post. The learned Single Judge though declined to grant a Writ of Quo Warranto, disposed of the writ petition with certain directions. The said order dated 27.04.2012 is assailed before us in this Writ Appeal. The facts in brief are as under: The writ petitioner/appellant is working as Professor P.G. in the Government Nizamia Tibbi College, Charminar, Hyderabad.The respondent No.3, who was working as Reader (PG) in the same college was placed on 03.07.2008 as Full Additional Charge of Professor (PG). While so, a vacancy arose to the post of Principal due to retirement of one Dr. Kouser Sultana on attaining the age of superannuation.By proceedings of the 2nd respond...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
(Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Habeas Corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing the respondent to produce Sri Malkireddy Gangadhar Reddy, S/o. Rami Reddy now detained in Central Prison, Kadapa before this Honourable Court and be may be ordered to be released forthwith after declaring that this detention is illegal, and void and pass.) N.V. Ramana, J. The petitioner, who claims to be the nephew of the detenu, namely Sri. Malikireddy Gangadhar Reddy, who is now detained in Central Jail, Kadapa, in pursuance of the order of detention dated 05.10.2011, passed by respondent No.1, namely the Collector and District Magistrate, Kadapa, as confirmed by respondent No.2, namely the Government, vide orders issued in G.O. Rt. No. 5147, dated 15.11.2011, has filed this writ ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD W.P. No. 7915 o29. 06-2012. Malikireddy Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy The District Collector & District Magistrate,Kadapa, YSR District and others. Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava Counsel for the Respondents : Advocate General : ?CITATIONS:1. (1995) 3 SCC 23.2. 2009 (3) ALT 66.3. (1975) 1 SCC 66.O r d e r: (Per Sri. N.V. Ramana, J.) The petitioner, who claims to be the nephew of the detenu, namely Sri. Malikireddy Gangadhar Reddy, who is now detained in Central Jail, Kadapa, in pursuance of the order of detention dated 05.10.2011, passed by respondent No.1, namely the Collector and District Magistrate, Kadapa, as confirmed by respondent No.2, namely the Government, vide orders issued in G.O. Rt. No. 5147, dated 15.11.2011, has filed this writ petition praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, by declaring that the orders of detention are illegal and the detention of the detenu in pursu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
This Writ Petition is preferred by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, assailing the validity of the orders passed by the Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act-cum-Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Ranga Reddy District, directing them to pay an amount of Rs.77,884/- towards gratuity payable to the 1st respondent employee of the Corporation. The most relevant facts for our inquiry are: The 1st respondent workman was initially appointed as an apprentice driver with the Corporation with effect from 27.12.1968 and he was subsequently, appointed as a regular driver with effect from 02.11.1970. He was promoted as an Assistant Depot Clerk and as a Depot Clerk. Ultimately, by an order passed on 27.03.1998, his services have been terminated for a proven misconduct of misappropriating certain amount of the Corporation. However, on the ground that the workman has not been paid his gratuity, he approached the competent authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act and the competen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Smt.M.Shreesha, Honble Member The petitioner/complainant filed this Penalty Petition seeking compliance of the orders of this Commission made in C.D.No.5/2004 dated 17-1-2007 in which this Commission partly allowed the complaint directing the opposite party to provide fire fighting equipment in the complainant association flats. The opposite party was also directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- and costs of Rs.5,000/- and directed to comply the said order within one month. This Commission vide its order dated 01-12-2011 directed the petitioner/complainant to approach the competent authority with respect to the location of the stair case before the respondent/opposite party executes or erects the stair case as pointed out by the Addl.Director General of Police and of State Disaster Response and Fire Services. The Addl.Director General of Police and of State Disaster Response and Fire Services vide their letter dated 25-4-2011 directed the external stair case with a width of 1.25 me...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2012(6)ALD66
(Appeal under Section 173 of M.V. Act, against the Judgment and Decree dated 14-08-2003 in M.V.O.P.No.296 of 2002, on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Court, Kurnool.) This appeal is filed against the order dated 14.08.2003 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II Additional District Judge), Kurnool in M.V.O.P.No.296 of 2002. 2. Heard Smt. S.A.V. Ratnam, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company and Sri K.V. Chalapathi Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 5. 3. The award passed by the Tribunal below is assailed by the appellant-Insurance Company on the grounds that the claimants failed to establish the identity of the vehicle involved in the accident and despite the said fact, the learned Tribunal gave its finding that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the Tempo Trax AP.21C. 7803 and also that the compensation granted by the Tribunal below is on higher sid...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Smt. M. Shreesha, Honble Member Aggrieved by the orders in C.C.No.182/2005 on the file of District Forum-II, Krishna at Vijayawada, opposite party No.1 preferred this appeal. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant being was attracted by the publicity of opposite party No.1 which floated Vishnupuram Colony stating that it would provide the said colony with all modern facilities like under ground drainage, under ground electricity, BT roads, temple, shopping complex, canals to drain rain water on both sides of BT road and developed park. Opposite party No.1 obtained lay out plan 9/99 from VGT UDA pertaining to phases 1 and Lay out Plan 2/2000 for phase II and collected Rs.200/- per sq. yd. from each member of the association towards development of the said facilities and in all collected Rs.55,98,000/-. The complainant association gave a detailed notice as there were lot of defects in provision of the said facilities. The BT road laid in the colony are of i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2012(5)ALD289
(Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more appropriately one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.1 not allowing registration of sale deed dated 16-3-2012 vide P No.14/12 of property Door Bearing No.280/7245/7. 8-8-466 (old) New No.8-20 total extend 2160 sq. feet Gandhi Road Chittor, consequently direct the respondent allow the registration of said property.) The petitioner intended to purchase an item of immovable property bearing No. 8-8-466 (old) and 8-20 (new) at Gandhi Road, Chittoor. A sale deed executed in his favour on 16.03.2012 by the owners of the property was presented for registration before the 1st respondent. The document was assigned a pending number and registration thereof was deferred. The petitioner states that the 1st respondent deferred the registration of the document on the basi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
PinakiChandra Ghose, ACJ. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it appear that the question is whether the amount in dispute can be paid to be person who is claiming himself to be the only legatee and the executor of the Will in question. Because of non-furnishing of probate, the appellant – Reserve Bank of India (RBI) was standing in the way to release the amount in favour of the executor/legatee as a result whereof the writ petition was filed and the Hon’ble Single Judge was pleased to pass an order allowing the writ petition and directing that the respondents shall consider the claims of the writ petitioner - respondent herein for payment under the Government securities without insisting on furnishing of probate of the registered Will executed in favour of the writ petitioner. Being aggrieved, the appeal was filed by the RBI. It appears that in this appeal an order was passed by the Division Bench directing the RBI to issue an ad...
Tag this Judgment!