S.No./
W.P.No. |
Petitioners & Respondents |
Relief sought /Relief Granted |
Filing/
Disposal
Follow-up |
1.
W.P.No.3664 of 1970
(Panchayatiraj) |
Between :
Perisik Tammanna Dora
S/o. Peda Chellanna Dora
Kondapalli, Yellavaram Taluk,
East Godavari District. ....Petitioner
And
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented
by its Secretary, Planning and Panchayat Raj
Department, Hyderabad
2. The District Collector (Planning)
East Godavari at Kakinada.
3. The Election Officer, (Asst. Director)
Survey & Land Records, Kakinada)
Rajavommangi Block, Yellavaram Taluk,
East Godavari District.
4. Undavalli Manikyam, S/o Subba Rao,
Vettigadda, Thantikonda Panchayat,
Yellavaram Taluk, East Godavari Dist.
5. Yellapalli Virabhadra Rao, Vice-
President, Rajavommangi Panchayat
Samithi, R/o. Gantavanipalem Gram
Panchayat, Yellavaram Taluk, East
Godavari District.
6. Cheppa Nookaraju, President, Rajavommangi,
Gram Panchayat, Yellavaram Taluk,
East Godavari District.
7. Pothubandi China Musalaiah, Sarpanch,
Legarai Gram Panchayat, Yellavaram, Taluk,
East Godavari District.
8. Sitarapu Naganna, Sarpanch, Labbarthi,
Yellavaram Taluk, East Godavari Dist.
9. Pallidemudu, Sarpanch, Thantikonda
Gram Panchayat, Yellavaram Taluk, East
Godavari District.
10. Gontireddy Vasanta Rayudu, Sarpanch,
Giddangi Gram Panchayat, Yellavara Taluk,
East Godavari dist.
11. Veerareddy Satyanarayana, Sarpanch,
Kimmuru Gram Panchayat, Yellavaram
Taluk, East Godavari Dist. ..... Respondents |
Relief Sought: To restrain the Respondents 4 to 11 from continuing in their offices and from discharging their duties by virtue of their election to the said offices whoa are not legally elected, pending the disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper. |
Case Material
Order |
1.
W.P.No.
14963/88
(Human Rights) |
Sakthi Vs the Deputy secretary to Govt. social welfare (T) Dept , |
Relief Sought : To issue a writ order particularly one in the nature of a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in issuing Memo No.537/T1/88-1.dt,\.2-7-1988 as illegal and void and pending disposal of the writ petition to suspend the respondent.
*** |
Filed on 22-10-88
Disposed On : 26-Jun-1992
Order |
3.
16173/89
(Co-operatives) |
SAKTI
V/s
State of A.P. & others |
Relief Sought: To hold election to the 28 primary societies affiliated to the Girijana Co-operative Corporation ltd. in the state of A.P.
Relief Granted: Directed to conduct the elections |
Elections were conducted
Disposed On : 05-Jul-1994 |
2.
8107/89
(Karshaka parishat) |
SAKTI
V/s
State of A.P. & Others |
Relief Sought: Challenging the section 3,8 & 9 of the A.P.Rashtra karshaka ParishatThe ordinance promulgating the A.P.Rastra Karshaka Parishat was withdrawn. |
Disposed On : 04-Feb-1998 |
7.
24935/2000
(Co-operatives) |
Sayaina Babu Rao, V/S
• The Govt. of A.P. by its Secretary, Cooperative (Soceities) Dept. Secretarirat, Hyderabad .
• The Registrar of Cooperative Societies, A.P., Hyderabad .
|
Relief Granted: " The present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to take a final decision to amend the Rule 22(A) of the A.P.Co-operative Societies Rules, 1964 to facilitate reservation of seats of Director for PA.C.S. to scheduled Tribe candidates.
This Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, directs the respondents to take a final decision regarding the amendment as expeditiously as possible and communicate the same to the petitioner." |
Disposed on
6.2.2001 |
7.
W.P.14275
(Civil courts in tribal areas) |
Between:
Asu Nagamma, d/o. Late Borraiah,
R/o. Morumuru Village, Bhadrachalam Mandal, Khammam Dist.
AND
- The Government of A.P. rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home (Courts-A) Dept, Secretariat, Hyderabad.
2. The Secretary to Government of A.P., Law, Legislative Affairs & Justice Home (Courts-C) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.
3 The Dist. Collector / Agent to Government, Khammam.
4 The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mobile Court, Bhadrachalam, Khammam Dist.
5 The Principal Secretary to Government, Tribal Welfare Dept, Secretariat, Hyderabad
6 The Commissioner of Tribal Welfare, Hyderabad
( RR 5 & 6 impleaded as per court order dt. 27-12-2004)
7 "SAKTI", a voluntary social organization for the
upliftment of Tribes People, (Regd.No.76/85),
Rampachodavaram, East Godavari District,
Represented by its Director, Dr. P.Sivaramakrishna
|
Relief Sought :
circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue writ or direction preferably writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 & 2 in establishing and continuing the 4th respondent (Mobile court) by appointing Revenue Divisional officer as sub-divisional Magistrate at Bhadrachalam, Khammam District, which is an agency area by issuing G.O.Ms.No.406, Home (Courts-A) Department, dt.27-06-1990, G.O.Rt.No.1471, Home (Courts-A) Department, dated.
25-05-1991, G.O.Rt.No.667, Home (Courts-A) Department, dated 25-03-1994, G.O.Rt.No.192, Home (Courts-A) Department, dated 28-1-1995, G.O.Rt.No.432, Home (courts-A) Department, dated 28-3-2001, G.O.Rt.No.431, Law (LA & J Home courts-C) Department dt.28-3-2001, & G.O.Rt.No.626, Law (LA & J Home Courts-C) Department, dated 14-06-2004 and consequential Notifications dt.21-04-03 and 01-05-2003 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the judgment of this Hon'ble High Court of A.P., in W.P.No.13197/99, dt.07-12-2000 and consequently direct the Respondents 1 & 2 to entrust the administration of Civil Justice to a qualified Judicial officer in respect of 4th respondent mobile court.
Relief Granted : It is needless to direct that the Government shall take an appropriate decision in the matter in the light of the recommendations of the committee and the views of the Tribes Advisory Council. For the present, we are not inclined to issue any directions in this regard.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs. |
Order
|
8.
9994/2006
(Tribewise seat allotment in school of exllence)
|
BHUKYA KISHAN NAIK & ANOTHER, V/S TRIBAL WELFARE DEPT., REP. BY PRL. SEC. & 4 ORS,
|
Relief Granted: " The present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to take a final decision to amend the Rule 22(A) of the A.P.Co-operative Societies Rules, 1964 to facilitate reservation of seats of Director for PA.C.S. to scheduled Tribe candidates.
This Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, directs the respondents to take a final decision regarding the amendment as expeditiously as possible and communicate the same to the petitioner." |
Disposed On : 21-Sep-2006
ORDER
Order(word file) |
9.
W.P.No. 12293 of 2006
(Panchayathiraj) |
Between:
1. "DHIMSA". a society registered under
A.P. Societies Registration Act 2001 (No. 938 of 2003)
having its office at D, NO. 9-22,
Lochaliputtu colony. Near Degree college,
Paderu, Visakhapatnam District
represented by its Secretary. K. Krishna Rao
2.SAKTI
…..PETITIONERS
AND
1. Government of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its
Principal Secretary to Government,
Panchayat Raj Department.
Secretariat Bldgs., HYDERABAD.
2. State Election Commission
Buddha Bhavan, Hyderabad rep.by its
Secretary
3. Commissioner for Panchayatraj,
Govt.of Andhra Pradesh,
Hyderguda, Hyderabad
|
Relief Sought : pleased to consider this additional Affidavit along with the Writ Petition and pass such further and other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.
|
Case material
Order |
9.
W.P.No.14136 of 2006
(Panchayathiraj) |
G. CHINNA RAO, E.G. DIST. V/S GOVT. OF A.P. PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPT. & 2 OTHERS
|
Relief Sought :To issue any appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring Sec. 242D of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 as unconstitutional and void as it violates Sec. 4 of the Provisions of Panchyat Raj (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act 1996 and 243M (b) of the Constitution of India and consequently hold all the elections to the Z.P.T.Cs. and M.P.T.Cs. held in 20066 under the said Section and Rules made there
under as illegal and void and pass such other further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.
|
Order (Word file)
|
|
