Issue around opening of Northern Dwaram of Lord Venkateswara Temple, Tirumala, Tirupathi for 10 days. The Writ was dismissed.
Category: High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification
Thota Suresh Babu Vs The Special Officer Mission AP
A PIL was filed to stay the same of government lands in a namesake scam called as Mission Build AP. Outright Sale of land Parcels/Land Assets on behalf of Mission Build AP, Government of Andhra Pradesh, available at Guntur and Visakhapatnam Districts of Andhra Pradesh “as is where is” basis through E-auction.
On 2020-05-28
Adjourned for filing of Counters by State.
On 2020-07-23
Multiple Writs which were filed on same subject were tagged and taken up together.
On 2020-07-30
4 weeks time given to file the stand of the State Government via Counter-affidavits.
On 2020-09-18
More Writs are tagged.
On 2020-11-25
Interim Orders were extended until further orders.
On 2020-12-30
Government filed a recusal petition seeking recusal of Justice Rakesh Kumar which was rejected by this Super scathing Order. This is a wonderful judgment from Justice Rakesh Kumar clearly laying out path towards dismantling of the State Government which was been doing all unconstitutional activities.
It would be difficult but will capture the gems from this Order below.
Anil Kumar and 2 Ors Vs State of A.P. Anr on 03 Apr 2019
Single Judge Bench of JUSTICE Dr. B.SIVA SANKARA RAO, quashed the false 498A/DP Act complaint on Father in law and two sisters in law. Just one Paragraph !!!
From Para 6,
6. There is no record even shown from the police charge sheet by collecting from father of de facto complainant as to any so-called additional amount of Rs.4,30,000/- given out of his retirement benefits or 15 tulas of gold. It is crucial if at all to believe as to what were the retirement benefits he received and when from his account he parted with. There is no date or time even mentioned either in the report or from the police investigation to believe, leave about the fact that the so-called marriage performed, from the police investigation out of love affair between A-1 and de facto complainant against the will of the parents of the de facto complainant and the parents of A-1, who are A-2 & A-3 from the beginning agreed for the love marriage with no objection. Once such is the case, even the stray allegation of the petitioners/A-2 to A-4 used to abuse her as not of their caste or religion and if they marry another girl, they could get more dowry itself is unbelievable, for the very marriage is love marriage. Even to say that there was any instigation to A-1 by A-2 to A-4 for additional dowry when it is a love marriage and no dowry shown paid originally and as discussed supra of no any payment of dowry by father of de facto complainant after his retirement from his benefits alleged, the question of any payment of additional dowry is unbelievable. It clearly shows the petitioners/A-2 to A-4 are roped without any basis for reasons better known by the de facto complainant and the police investigation in this regard is also perfunctory and baseless and the legal position is very clear that unless from the specific allegations in the complaint against the other relatives of the husband, no cognizance can be taken against the family members, particularly from the tendency of making baseless allegations in roping them and even a stray sentence as suffered harassment in the hands of in-laws, etc., is not sufficient to sustain any such accusation to rope the other family members of the husband of the de facto complainant, so-called victim.
Citations :
Other Sources :
Index of Quash judgments here.
Ramadugu Omkar Varma Vs Ashok Naik on 24 Jan 2020
A Police officer who made an illegal arrest was handed with a sentence of imprisonment for a period of four (04) weeks, and shall also pay fine of Rs.2,000/- in four (04) weeks. The sentence of imprisonment imposed on the respondent is suspended for a period of six (06) weeks.
But then, Court also said the following:
Subsistence allowance at the rate of Rs.200/- per day shall be deposited by petitioner within four (04) weeks.
Rayidi Naga Lakshmi and Anr Vs State of AP and Ors
Another Habeau Corpus petition.
On 2020-06-17,
Reddi Govinda Rao Vs State of AP and Ors
Two persons were illegally detained and this Writ of HC got filed.
Side note: Connected WPs: Most of these are already entrusted with CBI for further investigation on Police atrocities and excesses.
WP 17122/2019
WP 17099/2019
WP 14544/2020
WP 16306/2020
WP 16343/2020
WP 2167/2020
WP 6554/2020
WP 4434/2020
WP(PIL) 45/2020
On 2020-03-13,
A time of 1 week was granted Government pleader to file proper response to the allegations made in the WP.
On 2020-10-01,
Advocate submits that the Police entered into his residence, after filing of the petition!!! May be an attempt to terrorize the advocate…
The High Court directed the Government Pleader, to come prepared to assist the Court as to whether in the circumstances, which are prevailing in the State of Andhra Pradesh, the Court can record a finding that there is Constitutional Breakdown in the State of not.
Beautiful !!!
Note: Supreme Court passed a stay Order here.
On 2020-11-07,
4 FIRs were lodged on one of the detenues in a span of 2 days. None of the advocates from both sides were aware of the FIRs so High Court directed Registry to communicate with Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam to file as affidavit with detailed of the 4 FIRs, when were they filed in which magistrate Court and at what time.
Reason: The Court wanted to know if the illegal arrests happened first even before registering of FIRs on the detenues!!!
Varla Ramaiah Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 16 Sep 2020
State Government issued GOs to review all decisions taken by TDP Government.
GO.Rt.No. 1411
GO.Rt.No. 344
Varla Ramaish garu filed WP at AP High Court and the honorable granted stay on the operation of both the above GOs.
As usual, State Government went to Supreme Court here against the stay Order given by AP HC.
A.B. Venkateswara Rao IPS Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 22 May 2020
The DGP of AP Police Sri A.B. Venkateswara Rao IPS was suspended and here is the GO.
Upon filing a WP at AP High Court, the above suspension was set aside and the officer was reinstated.
State Government of Andhra Pradesh filed an SLP at Supreme Court here.
Government Guesthouse at Kapuluppada, Visakhapatnam
Government Guesthouse at Kapuluppada, Visakhapatnam
K.C. Kanniyappa Vs K.C. Lalitha and Anr on 26 Sep 2005
Single-judge bench of Andhra Pradesh held that, cross-examination need not be confined to the facts to which the witness testified on his examination-in-chief.
From Para 3,
3. Since O.S. No. 1141 of 2000, later renumbered as O.S. No. 20 of 2003, was ordered to be tried along with O.S. No. 47 of 1998, obviously common evidence is being recorded in both the suits. When two suits are clubbed and tried together, all the parties to the suits have a right to cross-examine the witness examined by the adversary, because Section 138 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (‘the Act’) confers such right on them. As per that Section 138 of the Act the witness called by a party shall first be examined-in-chief and if the adverse party so desires he can cross-examine him and then if the party calling him so desires, can re-examine him. That section specifically lays down that Chief examination and cross-examination must relate to relevant facts, but cross-examination need not be confined to the facts to which the witness testified on his examination-in-chief.
Casemine copy:
Legal Crystal copy:
Citations : [2006 ALD 1 370], legalcrystal.com/442436
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1166172/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5608f85de4b01497111422e0
https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/442436/k-c-kanniyappa-vs-lalitha-anr
