K. MANMADHA RAO
G. Ankamma Chowdary – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petitions filed under similar facts. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. detailed history of lease and show-cause notices. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. arguments against the legality of show-cause notices. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 17) |
| 4. court observations on established legal principles regarding jurisdiction and decision-making. (Para 14 , 16) |
| 5. final conclusion regarding the legality of the demand notice. (Para 18) |
| 6. court's conclusion to set aside the demand notice. (Para 19 , 20) |
ORDER :
K. Manmadha Rao, J.
The Writ Petition No.29067 of 2021 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief.
The Writ Petition No.28102 of 2021 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief.
Ram and Shyam Company v. State of Haryana and others
Seimens Ltd. V. State of Maharashtra and others (2006) 12 SCC 33
State of Punjab and another v Gurdial Singh and others
Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks
Anirudhsinhji Karansinhi Jadeja and another v. State of Gujarat (1995) 5 SCC 302
Devinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others
Kalari Nagabhushana Rao v. The Collector, Panchayat Wing, Guntur and Ors.
Manohar Lal (dead) by Lrs v. Ugrasen (dead) by Lrs. And others (2010) 11 SCC 557
Rajaram Jaiswal v Collector (District Magistrate) Allahabad and another
Statutory authorities must exercise powers independently, and actions based on predetermination or external influence are deemed illegal.
Writs under Article 226 can be maintained against predetermination by authorities, regardless of alternative remedies available, invalidating actions based on extraneous influences.
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.