Posts

Showing posts from January, 2015

The corporation is a public sector undertaking. When it undertakes direct recruitment, it should be very cautious and careful. If, for any reason, the process of direct recruitment is faulted or vitiated, the candidate who was selected by it and who joined the service will get caught in the cross-fire. A direct recruit candidate cannot be reverted back to any other lower post. He is normally picked up, while competing with the other candidates, from the open market. Therefore, for any reason, the process of direct recruitment is found fault with, then, he will have to be sent out of the service of the Corporation altogther, but cannot be reverted. Same would be the prospect even in case of an internal candidate. An internal candidate offered his candidature only because he satisfied the recruitment criteria in all respects including the upper age limit. He is required to compete with the candidates drawn from the open market. For all practical purposes, he is standing at par with the candidate drawn from the open market. If, for any reason, when the direct recruitment process fails, he will have to be terminated from the employment of the Corporation like any other candidate drawn from the open market. Therefore, keeping this grave consequence in mind, the Corporation would regulate its affairs properly and carefully from now on. Accordingly, a declaration is issued that the principle of reservation in favour of various social sectors segments in so far as single cadre posts is impermissible and it will be violative of the concept of equality enshrined under Articles 14 & 16 of our Constitution. The Corporation would accordingly regulate the entire exercise.

THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO            

WRIT PETITION NOs. 8851 OF 2008 and batch    

19-01-2015

N. Satyanarayana Murthy, S/o N. Sri Ram Murthy Occ: Deputy Manager (Marketing)  
        A.P. Oil Federation, Eluru Petitioner

The A.P. Cooperative Oil Seeds Growers Federation Ltd, Rep by its Vice
Chairman and Managing Director  Parisram Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad and 2  
others.. Respondents

Counsel for the petitioners : Sri V. Padmanabha Rao


Counsel for the respondents : 1. Sri M. Papa Reddy
                               2. G.P. for Cooperation
                               3. Sri V. Raja Manohar
                               4. Mrs. Marie Desai

<GIST:

>HEAD NOTE:  

?Cases referred

1.      AIR 1988 SC 959
2.      2010 (3) SCC pg 119
3.      AIR 1974 SC 532

THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO            

WRIT PETITION NOs. 8851, 11944, 16535 OF 2008    
AND
6453 OF 2011

COMMON ORDER:    


        W.P.No.8851 of 2008 was instituted by one
Sr…

The believability depends on the nature of explanation offered. In the instant case, the explanation pivots on Ex.D.2 document. Had this vital piece of evidence was not in the custody and reach of AO till it was produced in Court, no inference of manipulation can be drawn against AO, however it was admittedly said to be in his own custody and still it was not produced at the earliest point of time without any plausible reason. In such an event, the genuinity of Ex.D.2 cannot be accepted. Further, Ex.D.2 appears on a small piece of paper and contents appear to be typewritten in English and thereunder it is mentioned in the handwriting of PW.1 as itlu mee videyulu and beneath it, his signature and date as 16.02.2001 and within brackets Contractor are written. When PW.1 is an educated person, there is no reason why he did not write the contents of the receipt also in his handwriting. So the appearance of Ex.D.2 also throws doubt. 11) So on a conspectus of the facts, circumstances and evidence relating to Ex.D.2, no reliance can be placed on Ex.D.2. The cited decisions will not advance the cause of A.O. Therefore, it must be said that AO failed to rebut the presumption through the explanation offered by him. The trial court rightly convicted and sentenced him for the offences under Section 7 and 13 (1)(d) r/w 13(2) of P.C. Act and I find no merits in the appeal to set aside the judgment of the trial Court.

THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO          

Criminal Appeal No.518 of 2006

19-01-2015

V. Venkataswamy.... Appellant

The State ACB, Warangal Range, Warangal Rep. by Spl. Public Prosecutor for ACB  
cases,High Court of Judicature, Hyderabad.. Respondent

Counsel for Appellant: Sri Badeti Venkata Rathnam

Counsel for Respondent  : Sri R. Ramachandra Reddy
                          Special Public Prosecutor for ACB
<Gist:

>Head Note:

? Cases referred:
1)      (2011) 6 SCC 450
2)      (2009) 3 SCC 779
3)      AIR 1980 Supreme Court 1558
4)      (2006) 1 SCC 401
5)      AIR 1976 Supreme Court 294(1)
6)      1972 Crl.L.J. 1293 (SC)
7)      AIR 2002 SC 486
8)      2003 (1) ALD (Crl.) 933 (AP)


HONBLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO        
Criminal Appeal No.518 of 2006
JUDGMENT:  
        This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the Accused Officer (AO)
aggrieved by the judgment dated 27.03.2006 in C.C.No.18 of 2002 passed by
learned Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB C…

whether the said noble aim can be achieved by merely making organisers of brothel house and pimps as offenders while leaving the customers of flesh trade scot free.

THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO          

Crl.P.No.16593 of 2014

21-01-2015

Mohammed Shaheed .petitioner  

State of Telangana rep. by PP. Respondent

Counsel for Appellant   : Sri Bethi Venkateshwarlu

Counsel for Respondent  : Public Prosecutor

<Gist:

>Head Note:

? Cases referred:

1. 2014 (2) ALD (Crl.) 264
2. 2013 (2) ALD (Crl.) 393

THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO          
CRIMINAL PETITION No.16593 of 2014  
ORDER:
     The petitioner/Accused No.5 along with A.1 to A.4 and A.6 is accused
of committing offences under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Immoral Traffic
(Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short the Act).  On the evening of 05.08.2014,
the Police of Banjara Hills P.S raided the residential Flat No.104 in Jubilee
Hills and found the said premises being used for prostitution. A.2 and A.4
were said to be the brothel house organizers, A.1 and A.3 were pimps whereas
A.5 and A.6 were the customers. The police registered crime and investigating
the matter.
2)      N…

whether the authorities concerned were correct in holding that the applications filed by the petitioners and/or their predecessors-in- title were barred by limitation.=The Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam, rejected the subject applications on the ground that they were not filed within 30 days from the date of introduction of settlement rates, as prescribed under Rule 2(4) (wrongly described as Rule 4) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Grant of Ryotwari Patta Rules, 1973 (for brevity, the Rules of 1973).In so far as the legal position is concerned, it may be noticed that Section 67(2)(e) of the Act of 1948 empowers the Government to make rules for application of the provisions of the CPC and the Indian Limitation Act to applications, appeals and proceedings under the Act of 1948

THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR        

WRIT PETITION NOS.17882 OF 2004    


23-01-2015

Gadde Krishna Murthy and others Petitioners

 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Sitanagaram,  East Godavari District and
others...Respondents

Counsel for petitioners:  Sri VLN Gopala Krishna Murthy

Counsel for respondents: Govt. Pleader for Revenue

<GIST:

>HEAD NOTE:  

? CASES REFERRED:    

1.  2005(4) ALD 311
2.  2014(2) ALT 97
3.  1957 The Andhra Weekly Reported 106
4.  1999(1) ALT 327
5. 1995 (3) ALT 685

THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR        

        WRIT PETITION NOS.17882, 17888,  
17889 AND 17891 OF 2004  


DATED 23rd JANUARY, 2015    

C O M M O N   O R D E R  

       Individual orders dated 06.06.1986 were passed by the
Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam, rejecting certain applications
filed under Section 11(a) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area)
Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (for
brevity, the Act of 1948).  The said applications were made by the
peti…