Dismissed

N Venkata Reddy v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC19 Feb 2024WA/87/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This disposal concerns Writ Appeal No. 87 of 2024 against an interim order in a writ petition regarding transport vehicle tax. The High Court found no reason to interfere with the interim order permitting plying subject to payment and dismissed the appeal without costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ Appeal dismissed; interim order below not interfered with; No order as to costs.

N Venkata Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY

¶3

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶6

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶7

WRIT APPEAL NO: 87 OF 2024

¶8

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order dated 22-11-2023 in LA. No.1 and 2 of 2023 in W.P. No. 29534 of 2023 on the file of the High Court.

¶9

Between:

¶10

N. Venkata Reddy, S/o. Anjaneyulu, Age 60 years, R/o. D.No. 31-108, Gundaiah thota, Chilakaluripet, Palnadu Distric

¶11

...APPELLANT

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its PrI. Secretary, Department of Transport, Secretariat, Amaravati, Guntur District

¶14

The Joint Transport Commissioner, Guntur Region, Guntur 3. The District Transport Officer, Palnadu District, Narasaraopet 4. The Regional Transport Officer/Licensing Authority, RTA^Office, Narasaraopet, Palnadu District

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

lA NO: 2 OF 2024

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings of the 2"'' Respondent dated 27-09-2023 confirming the demand of penalty and tax dated 18-08-2023 for vehicle bearing Nos. AP05TF2258 and AP05TF2260 pending disposal of the above writ appeal.

¶18

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI THOTA RAMAKOTESWARA^RAO

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR TRANSPORT

¶20

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶21

APHC010019182024

¶22

m THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶23

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶24

[3446]

¶25

TUESDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT

¶26

HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR

¶27

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶28

WRIT APPEAL NO: 87 OF S024

Between:

N. Venkata Reddy

..Appellant(s)

The State of Andhra Pradesh and others

¶33

...Respondent (s)

¶34

Counsel for the Appellant(s):Sri Thota Ramakoteswara^Rao Counsel for the Respondents; GP for Transport (AP) PC:

¶35

The present Letters Patent appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order, dated 22.11.2023, passed in^WP.No.29534 of 2023.

¶36

On a perusal of the order, it is clear that the same^isan interim order subject to fihng of the coumter by the official respondents. The order also reflects that the petitioner - appellant herein has been permitted to ply the vehicles bearing^Nos.AP05TF 2258 and AP 05 TF 2260, subject to payment of Rs.5,50,000/-

¶37

¶38

.^<r

¶39

HCJ & RRRJ WA 87 2024

¶40

¶41

within a period of eight weeks and farther with an obligation to pay the quarterly tax dirring the pendency of the writ petition.

¶42

Leeirned coimsel for the appellant would submit that^as per the order, dated 18.08.S023, issued by the Office^{oftheDistrict} Transport Officer, Palnadu District, an amount of Rs.3,25,000/- only remains payable and outstanding towards the balance tax and penalty for the period from 01.01.2021 to 30.09.2021. It is. therefore, stated that what the petitioner is being asked to pay is much more than the hability outstanding against the appellant.

¶43

Be that as it may, it can be seen that the order impugned is only an interim order. It would be open to the appellant to approach the learned single Judge with a view to seek its modification, if so advised. We do not see any reason^tointerfere with the order impugned.

¶44

The Writ Appeal is disposed of accordingly. No order^as to costs.

¶45

Miscellaneous apphcations pending, if any, shall stand^closed.

¶46

Sd/- E.KAMESWARA RAO DEPUTY! REGIS JRAR

¶47

//TRUE COPY//

¶48

SEGTONOFFICER

¶49

To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Department of Transport, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Amaravati, Guntur District

¶50

1. The Joint Transport Commissioner, Guntur Region,^Guntur 3. The District Transport Officer, Palnadu District, Narasaraopet 4. The Regional Transport Officer/Licensing Authority, RTA Office, Narasaraopet, Palnadu Distric.t

¶51

One CC to Sri Thota Ramakoteswara Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP for Transport (AP), High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 7. Three CD Copies.

ssb gl

HIGH COURT

DATED:20/02/2024

JUDGMENT

WA.No.87 of 2024

Cj
f XCD 0 8 MAY 202^ Com!
★

¶58

DISPOSING OF THE W.A. WITHOUT COSTS

N Venkata Reddy v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N Venkata Reddy v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

J. Rama Rao, Vs Smt. T. Lakshmi at Theresamma

Ctp Granites and Exports Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Ctp Granite and Exports, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri Sai Teja Mahila Dwacra Group Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri Sai Teja Mahila Dwacra Group Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

V. Datta Sesha Sai Praveen Vs K. Ramachandracharyulu