K. MANMADHA RAO
Kishore Granites Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks relief against demand notices. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. introduction of the case and relief sought via writ petitions. (Para 3) |
| 3. arguments about predetermined nature of notices. (Para 6 , 9 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. court discusses the legality of the demand notices. (Para 8 , 21 , 22) |
| 5. court emphasizes principle against predetermined notices. (Para 10 , 14 , 20 , 23) |
| 6. court's judgment to set aside the demand notices. (Para 24 , 25) |
ORDER :
K. Manmadha Rao, J.
The Writ Petition No.29056 of 2021 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief.
The Writ Petition No.28142 of 2021 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief.
Seimens Ltd. V. State of Maharashtra and others
Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks
Devinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others
Kalari Nagabhushana Rao v. The Collector, Panchayat Wing, Guntur and Ors.
State of Punjab and another v Gurdial Singh and others (1980) 2 SCC 471
Rajaram Jaiswal v Collector (District Magistrate) Allahabad and another (1985) 3 SCC 1
Anirudhsinhji Karansinhi Jadeja and another v. State of Gujarat
Manohar Lal (dead) by Lrs v. Ugrasen (dead) by Lrs. And others (2010) 11 SCC 557
Writs under Article 226 can be maintained against predetermination by authorities, regardless of alternative remedies available, invalidating actions based on extraneous influences.
Statutory authorities must exercise powers independently, and actions based on predetermination or external influence are deemed illegal.
Writ petitions can be maintained against show cause notices if they demonstrate pre-determined conclusions by the authority, constituting a legal mala fide exercise of power.
Pre-determined issuance of demand notices violates legal principles requiring fair process, rendering them null and void.
Point of law: Rule 26(1) of APMMC Rules 1966, Rule 12(5)(h)(iii) of APMMC, 1966 for having excavated and transported 749 cum of Colour Granite without payment of seigniorage fee in contravention to c....
Point of law: Rule 20 of the Rules of 1966 provides that subject to a contract to the contrary, a quarry lease granted under the rules shall confer on the lessee, the right to quarry, carry away, sel....
For the purpose of Rule 35-A, if the Government feels that the orders passed by the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, on 16.10.2018 were not in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the D....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.