Andhra Pradesh Court June 2012 Judgments

Gmr. Hyd. International Airport Ltd., Vs. Central Board of Excise and ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2012(5)ALD177

(Prayer: 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 a “Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction (i) by declaring that Notification No.26/2009 - Customs (N.T.) dt. 17.03.2009 and Notification No.96/2010 - Customs (N.T.), dated 12-11-2010 to the extent of clause 5(1) (b), 5 (2) and 5 (5) and the consequent circulars dated 23-3-2009 and 10-1-2011 issued by 1st respondent are violative of Articles 14,19 (1 (g) and Articles 265 and 300-A of the Constitution of India apart from being contrary to Section 141 (2) and 157 of the Customs Act, 1962 (ii) by declaring that Notification No.26/2009-Customs (N.T.) dated 17-3-2009 to the extent of clause 4 issued by 1st respondent are violative of Articles 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India (iii) interdict the respondents from raising any demand towards purported costs of c...

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by Its Principal Secreta ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

V.V.S.Rao, J. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, its Director General of Police (Admn.), the Inspector General of Police, Guntur Range, the Superintendent of Police, SPSR Nellore and the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Gudur, SPSR Nellore, are aggrieved by the order dated 30.03.2011 in O.A.No.265 of 2010 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (APAT). By impugned order, the Tribunal while confirming the finding of guilt of charge, modified the punishment to that of reversion of the first respondent (hereafter, the applicant) from the post of Head Constable to Police Constable. The admitted facts in brief are as follows. The applicant while working as Head Constable was alleged to have committed theft of suitcase at RTC Bus Stand and also alleged to have forged the signature of HC 655 Sri V.Chinnaiah. The enquiry was ordered under the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (the Rules). The Sub-Divisional Police Officer conducted enquiry...

Syed Irshad Ahmed Vs. M/S.Sreemitra Townships (P) Ltd. and Another

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Smt. M. Shreesha, Honble Member Aggrieved by the orders in C.C.No.863/2009 on the file of District Forum-I, Hyderabad, the complainant preferred this appeal. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant is a defense personnel from Indian Air Force attracted by the colour brochures of opposite parties joined in the monthly instalment scheme of the opposite party for purchasing a plot @ Rs.440/- per sq. yd. admeasuring 200 sq. yds. in 40 monthly intalments and paid the entire sale consideration in 25 monthly instalments. Inspite of several representations, opposite parties failed to register the plot in favour of the complainant and on 05-2-2008, opposite party issued a letter to the complainant that they would register the plot within 45 days and on 4-9-2008 issued another letter asking the complainant to pay Rs.5,220/- as the plot is measuring 209 sq. yds. The complainant submitted that he immediately paid the difference of the amount. The complainant submitted ...

The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Rep. by Its Commissioner a ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2012(5)ALD291; 2012(5)ALT210

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against order, dated 21.11.2011, in I.A.No.519 of 2011 in O.S.No.655 of 2009 on the file of the learned VI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Respondent No.1 is the plaintiff in the aforementioned suit filed against the petitioners and respondent Nos.2 and 3 for declaration that the constructions made by respondent Nos.2 and 3 on the eastern side boundary of Schedule ‘B’ property without leaving proper set backs more particularly the doors, ventilators and windows as illegal and unauthorised. At the stage of trial, respondent No.1 filed the abovementioned I.A. for summoning the Commissioner of petitioner No.1 to appear before the Court as a witness along with the record. A counter affidavit was filed by the 2nd petitioner-Assistant City Planner, wherein it was categorically averred that under Section 674 (g) of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, the Commissioner has authorized/delegated his powers to the Assi...

Chundu Pullaiah and Others Vs. the Government of A.P. and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh

V.ESWARAIAH ACJ. This writ appeal is filed against the order dated 07-04-2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.9688 of 2009, whereunder and whereby the said writ petition filed by the appellants herein was dismissed. The appellants herein filed W.P.No.9688 of 2009 questioning NIL award No.27/2008 dated 30-06-2008 passed by the 3rd respondent herein in pursuance of the directions issued in W.P. No.20062 of 2006 dated 07-12-2007. The brief facts of the case are that the lands of the appellants and others situated at Kommuru Village, Nandalur Mandal, Kadapa District were notified under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) and it was published in the news paper on 31-07-2000. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 14-08-2000. After conducting detailed enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 20-04-2001. Without disclosing about passing of the said award, the appellants herein filed W.P.No.4945 of 2001 ...

Kakumani Subba Rao Vs. Kakumani Venkateswarlu (Died) Per Lrs. and Anot ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

The sole plaintiff filed the present appeal. His father was the first defendant and his younger brothers were defendants 2 and 3. After filing of the appeal, his father died. His mother, consequently, was brought on record as respondent No.4 in the appeal. I shall refer to the parties as they were arrayed in the suit and shall refer to the fourth respondent as she is arrayed in the appeal, as she was not a party to the suit.  2. The suit consisted of A to E schedule properties. The plaint consists of A and B schedules only. A schedule property consists of 15 items of immovable property. B schedule property consists of gold, jewellery and other movables. C schedule is the property cited by the second defendant as part of the joint family property. D schedule property is house property, which is cited by the third defendant as part of the joint family property. E schedule property, also cited by the third defendant, is cash of 1,12,000/-. 3. The plaintiff sought for partition of pla...

Pokuri China Chennamma Prakasam District Vs. the State of Andhra Prade ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2012(5)ALD373

(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandmaus declaring the proceedings of the 3rd respondent in Rc.F/1219/2006, dt. 17.06.2008 cancelling the dealership authorization of the petitioner which was confirmed by both the 2nd respondent in Appeal in Rc.CS2/3096/2008, dt. 23.12.2008 and 1st respondent in Revision vide orders in Rc.CS2/220/2009, dt. 10.12.2010 is as illegal, arbitary, malafide and violation of Article 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as Fair Price Shop Dealer of Vardhinenipalem Village, Jargumali Mandal, Prakasam District and supply essential commodities to petitioner’s shop by setting aside the impuged orders WPMP NO. 531 of 2011: Petition under Section 151 CPC prayin...

M/S. Kamalakannan Road Transport, Rep., by Its Proprietor Vs. Oil and ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2012(5)ALD380; 2012(5)ALT281

The Deputy General Manager, Materials Management Department, ONGC at Rajahmundry, 2nd respondent herein issued a notice inviting tenders in the month of September 2010, for hiring the services of effluent tankers for transportation of effluent from production installations for a period of three years and the last date for receipt of the tenders was stipulated as 27.09.2010. Pre-bid conference was scheduled to take place on 30.09.2010 and tenders were to be opened on 02.11.2010. Several tenders were submitted in response to the notice. The petitioner and respondents 2 to 6 were declared as qualified in the pre-bid conference. Accordingly, the tenders were opened. It emerged that the rates offered by the 3rd respondent, the lowest being Rs.9.99 ps. per unit, whereas the rates offered by respondents 4,5 and 6 are Rs.10.10 ps., Rs.10.15 ps. and Rs.10.15 ps. respectively per unit. The offer made by the petitioner was Rs.10.20 ps. per unit. Not satisfied with the rates offered in the tenders...

Bommaji Danam Vs. District Collector and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh

The petitioner intended to purchase an extent of Ac.3.22 cents of land in Survey Nos.143 and 144/1 of Kandulapuram Village, Cumbum Mandal, Prakasam District from one Mr. Shaik Abdul Ravoof. The sale deed executed on 28.09.2005 was presented for registration before the Sub-Registrar, Cumbam, 3rd respondent herein. Stamp duty of Rs.6,390/- and registration charges of Rs.355/- were paid. The 3rd respondent felt that the stamp duty paid on the document is inadequate. He referred the matter under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act (for short ‘the Act’) to the District Registrar, Ongole. The latter in turn issued notice, dated 19.04.2007 to the petitioner requiring him to explain as to why the deficit stamp duty of Rs.3,02,205/- and registration charges of Rs.16,790/- be not levied on him. The petitioner states that on receipt of the show cause notice, he submitted a representation. Before any order was passed by the District Registrar, Ongole, a new District of Registration fo...

The Government of A.P., Rep. by Its Secretary and Others Vs. G. Sanjee ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2012(5)ALD193; 2012(5)ALT410

(Prayer: Write Apeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order in W.V.M.P.No. 1937 of 2010 in W.P.M.P.No. 10997 of 2008 in W.P.No.8318 of 2008 dt. 12/09/2011 on the file of the High Court.) V. Eswaraiah, ACJ. Common Judgment: 1. Since the issue involved in all these writ appeals and writ petitions is similar, they are being disposed of by this common order.The writ appeals are filed by the State, represented by its Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, Hyderabad and its subordinate officers, against the common orders passed by the learned single Judge dated 12.9.2011 in W.V.M.P. No. 1937 of 2010 in W P No.8318 of 2008 and batch in refusing to vacate the earlier interim orders and making the same as absolute and directing to list the writ petitions for final hearing. 2.   For the sake of convenience, the parties, are hereinafterwards referred to as they are arrayed in the writ petitions. 3.   In the batch of writ petitions, most of them i.e., W.P. Nos. ...