Andhra Pradesh Court September 2015 Judgments
S. Usha Shree Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-30-2015
1. This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to direct respondent No.6 to pay regular pay scale attached to the post of Lecturer, i.e., Rs.5,980 “ 12,100 as revised as Rs.9,285 “ 21,550, and from time to time thereafter, to the petitioner, declaring the action of the respondents in not regularizing her services in the post of Lecturer from the date of her appointment as Lecturer, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The petitioner in her affidavit averred that she was appointed as Lecturer in respondent No.6 college, which is an aided institution, on a consolidated pay in the year 1992. That in the year 1996 she was appointed as Lecturer through selection process by the Selection Committee consisting of a Member of the Andhra Pradesh College Commission, two joint Directors of the Office of the Commissioner of the Collegiate Education and representatives of the Osmania University subject experts. That in the year 1999 the services of the petitioner were terminated orally, that ques...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. V.V. Vijaya Lakshmi Vs. Venkateswara Institute of Medical Sciences ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-30-2015
The petitioner is a graduate in MBBS from Gandhi Medical College. When the first respondent issued a notification on 18.05.2015 for admission to various Super Specialty Courses (DM/M.Ch) for the academic year 2015-2016, the petitioner applied for admission to M.Ch.Surgical Oncology. There are two seats in M.Ch.Surgical Oncology. The entrance test was conducted by the first respondent through online on 11.07.2015. 100 questions were given in the entrance test. The provisional key was released on 13.07.2015 and the petitioner submitted her objections to answers to question Nos. 6, 41, 65, 75 and 76. The final key was released on 21.07.2015 confirming the answers given in provisional key. She secured 85 marks and was given 4th rank. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 secured 2nd and 3rd ranks respectively. The first counselling was held on 27.07.2015. Though the first rank holder was provisionally admitted, he did not join. The third respondent herein is the second rank holder and he is entitled for ...
Tag this Judgment!Vasupalle Appanna Vs. The Tahsildar, Ranasthalam Mandal, Srikakulam an ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-30-2015
This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside order, in proceedings, vide D.Dis.No.460/2008-S2, dated 24.10.2008, of respondent No.3 and order, in proceedings, vide D.Dis.No.565/2008-S2, dated 03.03.2011, of respondent No.4. The petitioner belongs to fishermen community. In response to the notification issued by respondent No.2, he has applied for being considered for appointment as fair price shop dealer of Depot No.1, Jeerupalem Village, Ranasthalam Mandal, Srikakulam District. Respondent No.5 is also one such applicant. On consideration of the merits and demerits of the petitioner and respondent No.5, respondent No.3 has selected and appointed the petitioner as fair price shop dealer. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, respondent No.5 filed an appeal before respondent No.3. By order, dated 24.10.2008, respondent No.3 has allowed the appeal on the sole ground that the petitioner was a beneficiary of a scheme called Rajiv Yuva Shakthi Scheme about seven years prior to his ...
Tag this Judgment!Thotakura Subba Rao and Others Vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, R ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-30-2015
Common Order: 1. Since common question of law is raised in these writ petitions, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common order. Facts in WP No.27557 of 2011: 2. Petitioners are owners of 1781 square yards of land bearing Door No.7-1-22/5, Ward No.9, Block No.1, TS No.20/6 and 20/14, Jayaprakashnagar, Tenali, having purchased the same under registered sale deeds on various dates. Petitioners 1 to 3 executed Development Agreement-cum-GPA dated 27-04-2011 in favour of 4th petitioner for development of said property into residential apartment with stilt, ground floor and four upper floors. It is the case of the petitioners that the area in which the subject plot is situate is well developed with surrounding residential houses and the area also have amenities. With the intention to commence construction work, 4th petitioner made an application dated 02-05-2011 to Tenali Municipality-4th respondent for sanction of building permission to construct residential apartment. T...
Tag this Judgment!K.B. Chowdary, E-62983, Supdt(T) Vs. The APSRTC rep by its Vice Chairm ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-29-2015
This writ petition was allowed by this Court on 27.02.2015 but before the order was signed, a mention was made by Sri S.V. Ramana, learned standing counsel for the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), that his earlier concession that no enquiry was held against the petitioner was factually incorrect. The case was therefore directed to be listed under the caption For Being Mentionedto examine this aspect of the matter. Heard Sri S.M. Subhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri S.V. Ramana, learned standing counsel for the APSRTC. Perused the original record produced by the learned standing counsel. The petitioner was a Superintendent (Traffic) in the service of the APSRTC at its Simhachalam Depot. He was subjected to disciplinary proceedings in February, 2012, and was visited with the punishment of reversion to the post of Deputy Superintendent (Traffic), under the final order dated 29.08.2012 passed by the Depot Manager, APSRTC, Simhachalam. Aggrieved there...
Tag this Judgment!Vasanthu Sumalatha Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Chief Secre ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-29-2015
Common Order: (Ramesh Ranganathan, J.) Personal liberty is of the widest amplitude covering a variety of rights. Its deprivation shall only in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law conformable to the mandate of the Supreme Law, the Constitution, more particularly to Article 21 thereof. (N. Sengodan v. State of Tamil Nadu (2013) 8 SCC 664); Bhut Nath Mete vs. State of W.B., (1974) 1 SCC 645). Of all fundamental rights, conceded to the citizens under the Constitution, the right of personal liberty is the most cherished. A person is not to be deprived of this right except in accordance with the procedure laid down by law even if he be a man of the most desparate character. (Pilli Yeteswari v. Govt. of A.P (1996(4) ALT 485 = (1997)1 ALT(Cri) 184). Preventive detention is a serious invasion of personal liberty and such meagre safeguards as the Constitution has provided, against the improper exercise of the power, must be jealously watched and enforced by the Court. (Ram Krishan Bh...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Goman Agro-Farms Private Ltd. and Others Vs. M/s. Nagavali Greenl ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-29-2015
Common Order: 1. Company Petition No.179 of 2015 is filed by M/s. Goman Agro-Farms Private Limited (transferor company No.1). Company Petition No.180 of 2014 is filed by M/s. Himagiri Bio-Tech Private Limited (transferor company No.2). Company Petition No.181 of 2015 is filed by M/s. Himagiri Greenfields Private Limited (transferor company No.3). Company Petition No.182 of 2015 is filed by M/s. Konar Greenlands Private Limited (transferor company No.4). Company Petition No.183 of 2015 is filed by M/s.Medravati Agro-Farms Private Limited (transferor company No.5). Company Petition No.184 of 2015 is filed by M/s. Nagavali Greenlands Private Limited (transferor company No.6). Company Petition No.185 of 2015 is filed by M/s.Sindhu Greedlands Private Limited (transferor company No.7). Company Petition No.186 of 2015 is filed by M/s. Swarnagiri Greenfields Private Limited (transferor company No.8). Company Petition No.187 of 2015 is filed by M/s. Swarnamukhi Greenfields Private Limited (tran...
Tag this Judgment!Prasad Sushee Joint Venture, Hyderabad Vs. The Singareni Colleries Com ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-29-2015
1. In this writ petition, the petitioner herein questions the action of the 2nd respondent in considering the bid of the 3rd respondent and declaring it as the successful tenderer on 16.05.2015 in respect of the notified works, as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional. 2. It is stated that the 2nd respondent has issued a e-Tender Notice, (hereinafter referred to as the NIT ?) in respect of the works pertaining to Drilling, Excavation, Loading, Transportation, Dumping, Spreading and Levelling etc., of 1896.286 LBCM of overburden (i.e., 1863.006 LBM of In-Situ OB and 33.280 LCM of Coal) by using HEMM including Additional works viz., 6.00 lakh Drilling Meterage, 1500 Shovel Hours, 1500 Dozer Hours and De-silting of 3 LBCM from 2 No's of Cheruvu/Tanks at RKOCP, Mandamarri area for a period of 72 months “ Enquiry No: E111300503, dated 12.03.2015. The tenders submitted were opened on 16.05.2015 at 5-00 p.m., and out of 12 bids received, one was disqualified technically and, the other...
Tag this Judgment!Errabelli Dayakar Rao and Others Vs. Talasani Srinivas Yadav and Other ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2015
Common Order:(Dilip B. Bhosale, ACJ.) 1. The question of law that falls for our consideration is whether the High Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can issue mandatory direction to the Speaker of a State Legislative Assembly to dispose of a disqualification petition within a time frame?. 2. The facts, that are relevant for addressing the question, are taken from W.A.No.158 of 2015 arising from W.P.No.630 of 2015. This writ petition was filed by the appellants against four respondents including the Speaker of the State Assembly with the prayer that procedural facet, which defeats the substantial rights, is required to be interdicted by the process of judicial review by this Court and, in support, a strong reliance was placed upon the observations of the Supreme Court in Mayawati v. Markandeya Chand and others (1998) 7 SCC 517). Further, the petitioner prayed for a direction to the Speaker to decide the pending disqualification petitions fil...
Tag this Judgment!Israth Begum Vs. The State of Telangana and Another
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2015
Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J. This writ petition is directed against the order of preventive detention passed by the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City, exercising the power available to him under Subsection 2 of Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land-Grabbers Act, 1986 (henceforth for brevity referred to as Act'). The Commissioner of Police has passed the order of preventive detention on 30.09.2014. The grounds of detention have also been drawn on the same day and furnished to the detenue. In the grounds of detention, while adverting to the past conduct of the detenue, mention was made about the Criminal cases which have been booked against him in the past. The first one related to Crime No.431 of 2013 which was booked by the Jubilee Hills Police Station relating to an offence allegedly committed on 01.09.2013, based upon a complaint which has set out that at about 02.00 hrs...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »