Back
A. V. SESHA SAI, DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA
S Ayyappan Pillai – Appellant
Versus
M Subramanyam Reddy – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
A.V. Sesha Sai, J.
1. Heard Sri Srinivas Rao Bodduluri, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri S.V. Muni Reddy, learned counsel for the writ petitioners-respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri N. Aswarthanarayana, learned Government Pleader for Agriculture for respondent Nos.4 to 8, apart from perusing the material available on record.
2. Respondent No.6 in W.P.No.34931 of 2016 is the appellant in the present Appeal, preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein filed the aforesaid Writ Petition, assailing the proceedings of the Chief Executive Officer, Rythu Bazaars, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Guntur-8th respondent herein, dated 26.09.2016. By way of the aforesaid proceedings, the Chief Executive Oficer-8th respondent herein, engaged the appellant herein as Estate Officer, subject to certain conditions stipulated therein. The present Writ Petition No.34931 of 2016 came to be instituted on 26.10.2016. The learned Single Judge of the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh, while ordering notices, suspended the operation of the proceedings dated 26.09.2016 till further orders. After receipt of the notices, the respondents in the Writ Petition, contest
The power of judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution of India. It is for the executive to administer law and the function of the judiciary is to ensure that the Government carries out ....
The main legal principle established is the court's authority to appoint a Special Officer under Section 34-A of the Tamilnadu Societies Registration Act 1975 to address internal conflicts and regula....
The High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by quasi-judicial authorities in the absence of any jurisdictional error or patent perversity.
Writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 is limited to reviewing the legality of process rather than re-evaluating facts. Eviction upheld for breaches of lease conditions.
High Courts' jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 requires proving gross illegality or irregularity for intervention; cancellation of lease upheld based on violations of lease conditions.
The court upheld the legality of government orders regarding the appointment of an in-charge officer and suspension, finding no arbitrariness or illegality based on inquiry reports.
Disciplinary actions against a government employee must respect principles of natural justice and prior judicial orders, ensuring fairness and unbiased proceedings.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
