Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(2)ALD533; 2007(2)ALT410
G.S. Singhvi, C.J.1. The petitioners, who purchased different portions of the building known as Amrutha Business Complex, Ameerpet have filed this petition for quashing notice dated 22-8-2006 issued by Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner') under Section 636 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short, 'the 1955 Act') requiring them to demolish/remove/pull down the unauthorised construction not covered by the Sectioned plan within 24 hours of the date of receipt of the notice with the threat that if they fail to do so, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad (for short, 'the Corporation') will take action and demolish/pull down such construction and also recover expenditure from them.2. The background facts:(i) Sri Y.S. Rajesh Reddy, son of Sri Y.S. Anand Reddy, Sri K. Sudhakar Reddy, son of Dr. K.L. Reddy, Ms. K. Sunitha Reddy, daughter of Dr. K.L. Reddy and Sri Y.S. Anand Reddy, son of Sri Y.S. Konda Reddy purchased...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(2)ALD726
G.S. Singhvi, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against order dated 9-11-2006 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby she allowed the writ petition filed by the respondents and quashed order dated 31-3-2006 passed by Estate Officer and Additional Divisional Railway Manager, South Central Railway, Vijayawada (hereinafter referred to as 'the Estate Officer') under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short, 'the 1971 Act').2. A perusal of the record shows that by claiming themselves to be the owners of land comprised in Town Survey No. 1961/1, Ward No. 2, Block No. 42 of Kakinada Town, the respondents filed Writ Petition No. 1309 of 2006 against their threatened dispossession. The same was disposed of by this Court on 27-1-2006 with the direction that the non-petitioners (the appellants herein) shall not interfere or dispossess the petitioners (the respondents herein) from the land comprised in Town Survey No. 1961/1 of Kakinada Town and Municipal Corp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2007CriLJ2996
A. Gopal Reddy, J.1. These three Criminal Petitions involving common questions of fact and law were heard together and are being disposed of by this Common Order.2. A learned single Judge of this Court who heard Criminal Petition Nos. 4111 and 414 of 2003 noticing the conflicting views in Thungabhdra Chemicals and Fertilizers Co. Limited v. Assistant Director of Agriculture (Regular) Yerragondpaalem, Judgment in Crl P. No. 5462 of 2001 and batch dated 22-2-2006 reported in 2006 (2) Andh LT (Cri) 103 and in T. Deveswar Reddy, Area Manager, Nagarjuna Fertilizers & Chemicals Limited v. Assistant Director of Agriculture, Hyderabad, Judgment in Crl P. No. 4102 of 2003 dated 5-4-2006 on the question as to whether the law laid down by this Court in District and Sessions Judge, Cuntur v. State of A.P., Hyderabad 2000 (1) ALT (Cri) 103 (DB) (AP). would also apply to offences committed prior to 30-6-1999 the date of order of the Division Bench, by order dated 7-6-2006 referred the matter for an ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(2)ALD635
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. The City Restaurant Stores and Bakery represented by its Partner-the writ petitioner filed the present writ petition praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for records and quash the Letter No. 16/8/17/5/21 /TPS/C2/2005/75, dated 21-8-2006 issued by the 1st respondent and connected record relating to award proceedings in A/936/2005 dated 25-1-2006, issued by the 2nd respondent, as the same being illegal, arbitrary against principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to allot alternative site to the petitioner by extending the benefits of the judgment made in W.P. No. 16705 of 1986 and to pass such other suitable orders.2. The 1st respondent is the Assistant City Planner, Circle-II, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, the 2nd respondent is the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and the 3rd respondent-Sunil Kumar Gupta, who is the owner of the property in question, though duly serve...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(2)ALD766; 2007(4)ALT215
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. The matter is coming up for admission.2. Sri Ganta Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel takes, notice on behalf of the respondents.3. The writ petition is filed for a writ of certiorari calling for the entire record relating to the notice No. 303/ACP/ C6/MCH/06 dated 12-12-2006 given under Section 459 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, (hereinafter in short referred to as 'the Act') issued by the 2nd respondent and declare the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the impugned notice alleging that the premises bearing No. 5-5-426/21/W, M.J Road 'is in serious condition or likely to fall' and on requiring the owner/occupier (the petitioner herein being the occupier) to show-cause by submitting objections, if any, within three days setting out all the 'objections as to why the same should not be pulled down/ Remove/Repair to prevent all causes of danger therefrom' at the petitioner expenses, as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, unfair, unreasonable, disc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(2)ALD569; 2007(3)ALT556
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. The petitioner is priest (Archaka) of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Devunipally village of Peddapally Mandal in Karimnagar District (the temple, for brevity). He filed the instant writ petition impeaching the letter/order, dated 13/14.10.2006 passed by the first respondent. By impugned order, while initiating disciplinary enquiry into the alleged misconduct of the petitioner, first respondent placed him under suspension. The same is assailed mainly on the ground that the same is without jurisdiction. The petitioner's father was Archaka of the temple by reason of appointment order, dated 13.02.1986, issued by the third respondent (Deputy Commissioner). After death of the father, the petitioner was allegedly appointed by the second respondent (Assistant Commissioner) vide proceedings, dated 16.07.1993. The first respondent was appointed as Manager of the temple. He issued notice, dated 30.06.2006 proposing to conduct auction of the land in survey Nos. 283 and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : (2007)9VST41(AP)
ORDERJ. Chelameswar, J.1. The petitioner, a proprietary concern carrying on business in manufacture and sale of granite, is a registered dealer on the rolls of the second respondent both under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005. It appears from the affidavit that the petitioner sold polished granite slabs to M/s. Shiva Granites Marble, Surat. The invoice value of the goods is Rs. one lakh taxable at 12.5 per cent. The material was being transported by a vehicle bearing No. AP 27V 3229. The vehicle was intercepted by the first respondent at Hyderabad and a notice in form No. 610, dated December 7, 2006 was handed over to the driver. According to the notice, the abovementioned vehicle was carrying 2,639.54 sq.ft. of polished granite. The respondents also opined that the value of the material was not accurately stated in the invoice. According to the respondents, the said material is to be valued at Rs. 2,11,163 and consequently the peti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(2)ALD478; 2007(3)ALT124
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri Kuriti Bhaskara Rao, Counsel representing the writ petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj representing respondents 1 and 2 in the writ petition and Sri M. Prabhakar Rao, the earned Counsel representing the 3rd respondent and Sri I. Gopal Reddy, the earned Counsel representing the 4th respondent who was impleaded as per order dated 16-11-2006 in W.P.M.P. No. 29640/2006.2. Respondents 1 and 2 filed WVMP No. 2415/2006 to vacate the interim order in W.P.M.P. No. 17573/2006 dated 12-10-2006. W.V.M.P. No. 2382/2006 is filed by the proposed party, the present 4th respondent who came on record to vacate the said interim order. A reply affidavit also was filed by the writ petitioner. At the request of the Counsel representing the respective parties, the writ petition itself is being disposed of finally.3. Sri Kuriti Bhaskara Rao, the learned Counsel representing the writ petitioner had taken this Court through the averments made...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2008ACJ27; 2007(3)ALD731; 2007(4)ALT221
C.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Appellants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) seeking compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- for the death of their unmarried son Ramesh Kumar Tiwari (the deceased) said to be aged 22 years earning about Rs. 4,000/- p.m. as a cashier in Geetha Trading Company, alleging that when the deceased along with his friend was proceeding on a scooter, a lorry belonging to the first respondent and insured with the second respondent being driven in a rash and negligent manner came in the opposite direction of the scooter and dashed the scooter resulting in the death of the deceased.2. First respondent chose to remain ex parte.3. Second respondent filed its counter inter alia putting the appellants to proof of the averments in the petition.4. The claim petition filed by the appellants and another claim petition filed by the legal representatives of another victim were clubbed and common evidence was recorded. In support of the case of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(3)ALD141
C.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Appellants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) seeking compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- for the death of their unmarried son Brij Gopal Tiwari (deceased) said to be aged 24 years earning about Rs. 5,000/- p.m. from business, alleging that when the deceased along with his friend was proceeding on a scooter, a lorry belonging to the first respondent and insured with the second respondent being driven in a rash and negligent manner came in the opposite direction of the scooter and dashed the scooter resulting in the death of the deceased.2. First respondent chose to remain ex parte.3. Second respondent filed its counter inter alia putting the appellants to proof of the averments in the petition.4. The claim petition filed by the appellants and another claim petition filed by the legal representatives of another victim were clubbed and common evidence was recorded. In support of the case of the appellants. The first appella...
Tag this Judgment!