Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Nov-27-2001
Reported in : 2002(1)ALD370; 2002(2)ALT250
S.R. Nayak, J. 1. In these writ petitions, the constitutional validity of Sub-rule (5-A) of Rule 17 of A.P. General Sales Tax Rules, 1957 (for short, APGST Rules) as inserted by way of amendment vide G.O. Ms. No. 816 Revenue (CT. II) Department dated 15-11-2000 is assailed. The first petitioner in WP No.20211 of 2001 is the Andhra Sales Tax Practitioners and Consultants Association whereas petitioners 2 and 3 are Sales Tax Practitioners. The petitioners, 23 in all, in WP No.20152 of 2001 are the traders and registered dealers under the A.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short, APGST Act.)2. The following are the material averments in the affidavit filed in support of Writ Petition No.20211 of 2001.(i) Section 35 of APGST Act provides that any person who is entitled to appear before any authority may be represented, inter alia by a Sales Tax Practitioner who is duly authorized in writing in this behalf. Under the provisions of Rule 63 of the APGST Rules, 1957, the procedure for regis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Nov-02-2001
Reported in : 2001(6)ALD582; 2001(6)ALT433
V.V.S. Rao, J.1. The petitioner is a statewide Association. It is registered and established under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 with the object of safeguarding the rights of the persons belonging to Scheduled Tribes and espouse their cause in regard to their employment. Complaining fraud and misrepresentation the association filed this writ petition praying for a writ of or in the nature of Mandamus, holding that the appointment of the first respondent herein to the post of District and Sessions Judge, is void, unconstitutional, and also for a prayer to set aside the same.2. When the writ petition was listed before this Full Bench on 27-3-2001, it was brought to our notice that the first respondent filed W.P No. 18031 of 1999 questioning a show cause notice dated 16-8-1999, issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Parvathipuram (MRO), calling upon him to show cause as to why his application forissuance of Caste Certificate to his children and other family members as belonging to '...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Oct-16-2001
Reported in : 2001(6)ALD476; 2001(6)ALT255
S.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. How far and towhat extent the Doctrine of Procedural Ultra Vires shall be applicable is the question involved in this reference.FACTS:2. The petitioner was appointed as a Reader in the Copying Section of the Court of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. She was subsequently promoted to the post of L.D.C. A Disciplinary Proceeding was initiated against her in relationthereto the following charges were framed on 15-12-1993:'1. When the Presiding Officer Sri P. Venugopala Rao, VIII Metropolitan Magistrate orally directed you to prepare and get it typed the consolidated report of the old criminal cases in which accused were absconding, you refused to prepare and get it typed the same and further stated even if a written direction is given you will tear it off and go on leave; and 2. When the Presiding Officer stated thathe will not grant leave for the employeeswho avoid work then you threatened thePresiding Officer as ' and thereby you exhibited gross misconduct, d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Nov-12-2001
Reported in : 2002(1)ALD210; 2002(1)ALD(Cri)137; 2002(1)ALT611; 2002CriLJ1105
S.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. Possession and transport of black jaggery although by itself is not an offence, can the vehicles carrying the same, be liable to be seized under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act and the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act is the question involved in these writ applications? 2. Facts of each case may be noticed briefly thus: In Writ Petition No. 354 of 2001 the petitioners were transporting 10176 kilograms of jaggery in a lorry bearing No. ABT 5508. The said lorry was seized and such seizure is challenged in this writ petition on the ground that it is illegal and arbitrary. Writ Petition No. 19706 of 2000 is filed assailing the action of the respondents in interfering with their day-to-day business in all varieties of jaggery and alum. The petitioners in Writ Petition N0.22705 of 2000 seek quashing of the criminal proceedings and also to declare the seizure of jaggery as illegal and void. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that sale of jaggery is neither ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Jul-26-2001
Reported in : 2002(1)ALD728; 2002(3)ALT57
S.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. How far and if any, shrimp culture, prawn culture and other types of aqua cultures raised both in brackish/ saline/fresh water causes any environmental pollution is the primary question involved in this batch of writ petitions.2. This batch of writ petitions can be sub-divided into two groups:- The first group of the writ petitioners are those who have taken recourse to shrimp culture, prawn culture as also, aquaculture claimingthemselves to be freehold owners of agricultural lands contending that as no law is operating in the field prohibiting or regulating their activities, the revenue or the forest officers have been acting illegally and without jurisdiction in interfering therewith by either demolishing the tanks erected for that purpose or refusing to renew and/or grant permission therefor.The second group of the writ petitioners are small agriculturists who cannot carry on their agricultural activities having regard to the fact that as in the surrounding lands...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Aug-10-2001
Reported in : 2001(6)ALD506; 2002(2)ALT807
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. A short but an interesting question of law as regards the power and jurisdiction of the State Government/the Committee vis-a-vis the power and jurisdiction of the Central Government in regard to laying down conditions for establishment of medical/ dental colleges in Private Sector in the State of Andhra Pradesh fails for our consideration in this appeal.2. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. The Central Government enacted Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (Act 102 of 1956) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').3. The Medical Council of India made Regulations on 20th September, 1993 known as the Establishment of new Medical Colleges, opening of higher courses of study and increase of admission capacity in medical colleges Regulations 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1993 Regulations'). The qualifying criteria mentioned in the 1993 Regulations is in the following terms:QUALIFYING CRITERIAThe eligible organizations shall abide by Indian Medical Council ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Oct-05-2001
Reported in : 2001(6)ALD394; 2001(6)ALT57
S.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. The proviso to Subsection (2) of Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, as amended by A.P. Act No.8 of1998, which imposes a pre-condition of depositing the difference in the amount of duty determined by the Collector under Subsection (2) of Section 47-A on reference from the Registering Officer under Subsection (1) thereof, for preferring an appeal under Sub-section (5) of Section 47-A of the Act against the order of the Collector passed under Sub-section (2), is challenged in this writ petition as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. 2. The fact of the matter is as follows: 3. The petitioners entered into various conveyance deeds for purchase of property at Municipal Nos-8-2-592, 593 and 592/1 situated at Mehid Nawaz Jung Road, Hyderabad. Seven documents in relation thereto were presented for registration before the 3rd respondent in the month of December, 1996. The 3rd respondent directed the petitioners to pay an amount of Rs. 12,06,970 being the deficit stamp ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Aug-18-2001
Reported in : 2001(6)ALD35; 2001(5)ALT610; [2002]108CompCas469(AP)
S.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. In these applications various provisions of the Consumer Protection Act have been questioned. In Writ Petition Nos.10935, 10939 and 11109of 2001, the petitioners had questioned the validity of Sections 2 (d), (e), (f), (g), Sections 9, 10, 11, 14, 16, 21, 22, 23, 24(b) and 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short 'the said Act') whereas in the other writ petitions the vires of Section 27 of the said Act is in question. 2. The main thrust of the submission of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners led by Sri S. Ramchandra Rao principally are: (i) Having regard to the composition of the different Commissions, which are manned by, lay persons and as the decisions of the majority of the members who may be laymen would prevail over the decisions of ajudicial member/Chairman, the provisions of the said Act must be held to be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. (ii) As an appeal is provided to the Supreme Court from an order...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Sep-13-2001
Reported in : 2001(5)ALD828
V.V.S. Rao, J. 1. This is an application seeking review of the judgment of this Court dated 24-3-1999 in WA No. 435 of 1999. By the said judgment, a Division Bench of this Court upheld the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 18-11-1998 in WP No. 6453 of 1998. Reliance was placed on earlier order of this Court in WP No. 10773of 1996 in which it was directed that the petitioners herein shall issue pattadar pass books to the respondents herein. In these matters, the parties herein will be referred to by their status in WP No. 6453 of 1998, out of which WA No. 435 of 1999 arose.2. The first respondent, namely, Director of Settlements, issued a show-cause notice to the writ petitioner bearing PP.No. 5/98 H2 dated 28-2-1998 to show-cause as to why the patta granted to the petitioner should not be held irregular and liable for cancellation. It is stated in the impugned show-cause notice that the land admeasuring Acs.0.48 in Venkatagiri Village of Venkatagiri Mandal comprising in RS No....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Aug-02-2001
Reported in : 2001(2)ALD(Cri)373; 2001(4)ALT674; 2002CriLJ710
B. Sudershan Reddy, J.1. The petitioner in the instant writ petition is Deendar Anjuman represented by its Secretary, Syed Siddique Hussain. The notification issued by the Government of India under proviso to section 3(3) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for short 'the Act') vide Notification S.O.No.373 (E), Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary on 28-4-2001 is impugned in this writ petition. By the said notification the Government of India declared the petitioner association/organisation as an unlawful association with immediate effect. By the very said notification, the Central Government, in exercise of the power conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Act, declared the petitioner association to be an unlawful association. The challenge in the present writ petition has been confined to the exercise of the power by the Central Government under the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 3. The controve...
Tag this Judgment!