Allowed

M.v.Krishnaiah v. TheCollector of Legal Metrology

Telangana HC13 Oct 2006WP/25064/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the rejection of his representation to carry out weighing machine repairs personally when skilled workers are unavailable. The Single Judge set aside the impugned order and directed the respondents to reconsider his application within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was set aside, and the petitioner was directed to file a fresh representation to be disposed within four weeks.

M.v.Krishnaiah Vs TheCollector of Legal Metrology — Consumer Protection | Telangana HC (2006)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.25064 OF 2001

¶3

Date: 1 3 th October 2006

¶4

Between: M.V.Krishnaiah, s/o Somaiah, Proprietor of Sri Venkateswara Weighing Machina Corporation, aged 56years, resident of H.No.13-125, Kakarlavari Street, Nellore Town, Nellore.

¶5

…. Petitioner.

¶6

And

¶7

1. The Controller of Legal Metrology, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and 2 others.

…. Respondents.

ORDER:

This writ petition is directed against the proceedings in Memo No.5996/L1/2001 dated 30.7.2001 of the Controller, Legal Metrology, Hyderabad, wherein the representation filed by the petitioner seeking permission to undertake repairing work by himself in any of the areas of licence held by him if the skilled worker therein is not available for any reason, was rejected.

¶12

2. The case of the petitioner is that he has license under the Andhra Pradesh Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985. For Gudur, Nellore, Kavali he has category-I licence and in

¶13

Nellore-2 he has category-II licence also. It is his case that whenever any skilled worker is not available either in Gudur, Nellore, Kavali or Nellore-2, he may be permitted to attend the repairs as required. In this regard he made representation dated 19.4.2001 to the respondents. Instead of considering the representation in the right spirit, the respondents have construed something else and rejected his representation.

¶14

3. In the representation dated 19.4.2001 the petitioner asserted that under the name and style M/s. Sri Venkateswara Weighing Machines Corporation, he is possessing heavy and light skilled worker’s certificate and he himself being skilled worker and owner he is entitled to carry on repairing works when any of his skilled workers either in Gudur, Nellore, Kavali or Nellore-2 is not available. According to the petitioner his application was misconstrued and his request to undertake repairs with one skilled worker in Nellore, Gudur and Kavali was rejected. This view taken by the authorities in the impugned memo seems to be not correct. The request of the petitioner is to permit him to attend repair works at other places having jurisdiction whenever a skilled worker is absent or not available for any reasons.

¶15

4. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the petitioner is directed to file a fresh representation and on filing such representation, the respondents shall consider the same as per law and dispose of it within a period of four weeks thereafter.

¶16

5. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶17

No costs.

¶18

C.V.RAMULU, J.

¶19

Date: 13^th October 2006. BSB

M.v.Krishnaiah v. TheCollector of Legal Metrology

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.v.Krishnaiah v. TheCollector of Legal Metrology

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nannam Padmavathi, Vs The District Collector

V. Venkateswara Rao, Vs The District Collector (Civil Supplies)

The Nadendla Pacs Ltd., Vs The General Manager

Shaik Moulali, Vs The Commissioner for Cooperation and Registrar of -

Bellam Subbaiah Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh,. Rep. by its

Addaganti Seshaiah Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Secretary