SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1990 Supreme(AP) 63

M.JAGANNADHA RAO
Hari Om Rajender Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Chief Rationing Officer of Civil supplies – Respondent


M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THERE are 8 persons shown in this writ petition as petitioners and are represented by their General Power of Attorney Holder, Sri Kamal mittal. They seek the issue of writ of mandamus declaring that the action of the respondent (Chief Rationing Officer, Hyderabad) deducting the value, at the rate of Rs. 81-17 ps. per quintal/bag for 2310 bags of Chanadal seized on 29-11-80 from Kachiguda Railway Station belonging to the petitioner firm is illegal and arbitrary and also for directing the respondent to pay the amount of Rs. 1. 87,502-70 ps. with interest at 18% p. a. , as per Section 6-C (II) of the Essential Commodities Act and also for payment of compensation.

( 2 ) AT the time of admission of the writ petition, the patitioners filed W. P. M. P. No. 15954/89 for allowing the G. P A to appear as party in person "to plead" the case. The application was ordered by the learned single Judge and then the writ petition was admitted on the same day. The respondent did not, however, have the opportunity of opposing the said application. Subsequently, when the matter camp up before me, a doubt arose in my mind as to the competency of the G. P. A. to plead the case












Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top