Andhra High Court

Andhra High Court

  1. Counsel for respondents: Learned Advocate-General for the State of Andhra Pradesh, Sri B. Narayana Reddy, Learned Assistant Solicitor General, Sri Soma Harinath Reddy, Sri K. Satya Srinivasa Rao, Sri M. Ravindranath Reddy, Sri P. Sudhakar Reddy, Sri T. Sudhakar Reddy, Sri Nadakuditi Ravi Shankar, Sri B. Prakasam, Sri B. Thimothi, Sri Banda Prasada Rao, Sri K. Ramanuja Chari, Smt. A. Anasuya, Sri Mummaneni Srinivasa Rao, Mrs.A.Jayanthi, Sri T.Venkta Raju, Sri Uma Shankar Lokanadham, Sri Kalamata R.Babu, Sri K.Santhosh, Sri P. Roy Reddy, Sri Y. Sudhakar Reddy, Sri A. Yadava Reddy, Dr.P.B. Vijay Kumar, Sri P.V.V. Satyanarayana, Sri M. Papa Reddy, Sri Tadi Nageswara Rao, Smt. Jagarlamudi Koteswari Devi, Sri N. Siva Reddy, Sri N. Ravi Prasad, Sri V.T.M. Prasad, Sri Akula Anil Srinivas, Sri P. Subash, Sri J.S. Raju, Sri Gangula Ashok Kumar Reddy, Sri R. Radha Krishna Reddy, Sri A.K. Jaya Prakash Rao, Sri K.R. Raman, Sri K.C. Venkata Reddy, Smt. M. Siva Jyothi and Sri K. Indra Reddy, Learned Standing Counsel.

  2. By order dated 22.09.2016, this Court granted interim suspension of the proceedings dated 11.07.2016, being of the opinion that as the services of the petitioner were already converted from that of a Medical Officer (Ayurveda) to a Lecturer (Ayurveda), under the proceedings dated 10.07.2009, it was no longer open to the Government to post him as a Medical Officer. This Court left it open to the Government to utilize his services as a Lecturer at the place of its choice, but categorically stated that posting of the petitioner as a Medical Officer could not be countenanced.

    WVMP No.495 of 2017 was filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh and its authorities in the Department of Ayush to vacate the aforestated order, while WVMP No.626 of 2017 was filed by the sixth respondent with the same prayer.

  3. >HEAD NOTE:

    ? Cases referred:

    1.2013(2) ALD (Crl) 474 (DB) 2.2014(2) ALD 523

    3.AIR 1994 SC 2663 4.1974 Law Suit (AP) 183

    5.AIR 1964 SC 477 6.2017 (1)ALD 655 (DB) THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI W.P.Nos.5778, 6127, 6129 and 12673 of 2016 COMMON ORDER:

    Since all these writ petitions are inter-related, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of these writ petitions, by way of this Common order.

    2. W.P.Nos.6127 and 6129 of 2016, filed by State and two others, challenge the common judgment rendered by the Principal Sessions Judge, Adilabad in Criminal Appeal Nos.138 and 146 of 2015 dated 23.11.2015. W.P.No.5778 of 2016, filed by Axis Bank Limited, prays for a direction to Respondents 1 and 2 authorities to return the goods covered by Criminal Appeal Nos.138 and 146 of 2015. W.P.No.12673 of 2016, prays for a direction to Respondents 1 to 4 authorities to release the seized stock of Soyabean as per the directions in Criminal Appeal No.138 of 2015 dated 23.11.2015. The fate of W.P.Nos.5778 and 12673 of 2016 depends obviously on the outcome of W.P.Nos.6127 and 6129 of 2016.

  4. >Head Note:

    ? Cases referred:


    Petitioner is a driver in respondent corporation. On 16.12.2016 he was assigned service bus bearing registration NO. AP 10 Z 9964 from Makthal to Marikal via Undecode. The bus was stopped at Beerappagudi, Pattached village and after observing the bus stop, petitioner moved the bus. While so, persons standing nearby shouted to stop the bus, accordingly, petitioner stopped the bus. It appears, an old lady, standing near the bus stop, fell between the front and rear tyres of the bus and rear tyre moved over the body of the old lady and she died instantaneously. The Superintendent (Traffic), made a spot inspection to ascertain the reasons for accident and submitted his report on 17.12.2016. A preliminary enquiry was conducted on 27.12.2016 and the report was submitted to the competent authority. There was a joint enquiry by the Depot Manager-second respondent along with another Depot Manager and report was made on 5.1.2017. There after, on 9.1.2017, the Depot Manager, issued two proceedings, in one proceeding, petitioner was placed under suspension and in second proceeding, charge was framed against the petitioner. Petitioner filed his explanation on 12.1.2017; not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, an Enquiry Officer, was appointed. Challenging the order of suspension and framing charges, this writ petition is filed.

  5. >Head Note:

    ?Cases referred:

    2003 (2) ALD 638 2016 (1) L.S. 26 (SC) 2002 (4) ALD 859 2003 (3) LS 154 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 388 OF 2017 ORAL ORDER:

    Heard learned counsel for petitioner Sri J Venkateswara Reddy and learned counsel for second respondent Sri M Rama Krishna.

    2. Petitioner (plaintiff) instituted O.S No. 924 of 2012 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge at Warangal praying to grant declaration of title and delivery of possession. At the stage of defendants evidence, defendants sought to mark document dated 17.10.1985 (Ex.B9) and document dated 7.12.1992 ( no document number is shown) which is a map disclosing share of the property. Plaintiff raised objection on admissibility of those two documents. It was contended that said documents are not properly stamped and cannot be admitted in evidence even for collateral purpose as per Section 49 of the Registration Act.

  6. 2. The learned Judge, Family Court, on appreciation of the material covered by petition and counter and also from the evidence of P.W.1 and Rws.1 and 2 with reference to Exhibits R1 to R41, by the impugned order dated 28.11.2015, awarded maintenance of Rs.10,000 per month from date of petition with proportionate costs, with a direction to pay all arrears due after deducting interim maintenance paid by him at Rs.2,000/- per month from date of petition.

    3. The contentions in the grounds of revision vis--vis the oral submissions of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner (for short, husband) are that the impugned order is contrary to law, illegal, improper, unjust and is liable to be set aside, that the maintenance case was filed on 11.07.2008, whereas his marriage performed on dated 02.12.2004, with the revision respondent (for short, wife) was dissolved by a decree of divorce in his favour on the ground of cruelty on 16.03.2012 - in O.P.No.317 of 2008, on the file of Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy at L.B.Nagar, that the maintenance case allowed later on 28.11.2015, from date of petition, ignoring the dissolution of the marital tie from which she is no longer wife, irrespective of a divorced wife is otherwise entitled to maintenance within the meaning of wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C., mainly for the fact that the husbands obligations and liabilities to maintain wife of subsisting marriage are different to his divorced wife, that wife is under obligation to live with husband but not for a divorced wife where either of them got liberty to have another spouse and question of neglect of a divorced wife thereby does not arise, that the standard of living to a subsisting wife with that of husband cannot be equated to a divorced wife, apart from divorced wife got other remedies by independent proceedings to have maintenance claim (alimony).

  7. The petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer at Kurnool in Zone IV on 20.07.1992 and was thereafter transferred to Visakhapatnam in Zone I on her own request, as her husband was working at BHEL, Visakhapatnam. She thereupon took the last rank in terms of seniority in the cadre of Lecturers at Visakhapatnam. She was promoted as a Principal in September, 2012, basing upon her reduced seniority. After bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh, the authorities sought her option for allocation to one of the newly formed States. Guidelines in this regard were communicated vide G.O.Ms.No.312 dated 30.10.2014. The total number of posts of Principals were 256, of which 140 were allotted to the new State of Andhra Pradesh and 116 to the State of Telangana. Admittedly, 23 vacancies in the said post fell to the lot of the State of Andhra Pradesh, while 9 vacancies were in the State of Telangana.

  8. In the foremost, the observation of the Tribunal that under Section 163-A of the Act medical expenses only to an extent of Rs.15,000/- can be granted, can be met with, with the help of rulings furnished by the counsel for the appellant and the other rulings. The ruling in the case of SAPNA Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND ANOTHER is to the effect that deviation from Second Schedule can be made in appropriate cases. The said aspect is dealt with under para 11 of the judgment, which runs as follows:

    It is now a well-settled principle of law that the payment of compensation on the basis of structured formula as provided for under the Second Schedule should not ordinarily be deviated from.

  9. At the hearing, the counsel for the appellant submits that the delay in giving the report is very well explained by stating in the report, that after the accident, the owner of the vehicle approached them and assured that he would pay the compensation and asked them not to file any case, hence they did not give report immediately and after the owner failed to comply with his promise, they gave report to the Police. The said explanation seems to be cogent and there cannot be any other reason for the appellant not to give a report. The following facts also would support the above opinion.

    As per the FIR, the accident occurred on 07.04.2004 and Ex.X-1, case sheet of M.G.M. hospital, reveals that the appellant was admitted in the hospital on 07.04.2004 and injuries were found on the body of the appellant. Hence, the explanation given by the complainant in the report can be upheld as cogent as the fact of accident is made probable by the injuries sustained by the appellant.

  10. 2. The petitioners are legal heirs of Dr.E.B. Christian alias Dr. Naidu.

    3. It is not in dispute that a registered sale deed was executed in favour of Dr. Naidu on 7th Ahaban 1345 Fasli [7th September, 1935 A.D.] in respect of Acs.34.23 guntas in Survey No.326 and Acs.25.00 guntas in Survey No.310 situated at Khasba Akhali, now known as Zaheerabad.

    4. Alleging that under a Will dt.09.03.1960 executed by the said Dr. Naidu, they inherited the property, the petitioners applied to the 4th respondent for issuance of pattedar pass book and title deed under the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattedar Passbooks Act,1971 (for short, the Act).

    5. The then Tahsildar, Zaheerabad Mandal, Medak district (the 4th respondent) issued pattedar pass books and title deeds to petitioners in 2004 vide orders dt.15.10.2004 bearing Nos.262439 to 262441.

Welcome To Satyagraha

Ezekiel 27:12 - "Tarshish was thy merchant by reason of the multitude of all kind of riches; with silver, iron, tin, and lead, they traded in thy fairs."

Show Your Support by liking our facebook page: