Disposed

Nalluri Rammurthi, v. The Tobacco Board guntur

Telangana HC3 Jul 2009WP/12527/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, petitioners challenged refusal to sell unregistered Virginia tobacco. Court, accepting respondent's stance that sale would be allowed after processing fees, disposed of the petition without further adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider petitioners' case for sale of tobacco in terms of the Central Government Notification dated 01.07.2008 after registered growers' sales are completed.

Nalluri Rammurthi, Vs The Tobacco Board guntur — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI

¶5

WRIT PETITION No : 12527 of 2009

¶6

Between:

¶7

1 Nalluri Rammurthi, S/o. Kotaiah, Nippatlapadu (V), Cheemakurthi (M), Prakasam District.

¶8

2 Nalluri Venkateshwarlu, S/o. Rammurthi, Nippatlapadu (V), Cheemakurthi (M), Prakasam District.

¶9

..... PETITIONERS

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The Tobacco Board Guntur, Rep. by its Chairman, Guntur.

¶12

2 The Tobacco Board, Ongole Branch, Rep. by Branch, Manager, Ongole, Prakasam District.

¶13

....RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to accord permission for selling Virginia Tobacco raised in the lands of the Petitioners at Tobacco Platform No. 20, Ongole-I, Prakasam District after calling for the records and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.PRATTIPATI VENKATESWARLU

¶16

Counsel for the Respondents: MR.S.SRINIVAS REDDY

¶17

The Court made the following:

¶18

THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI

¶19

WRIT PETITION No : 12527 of 2009

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in not permitting the petitioners to sell Virginia Tobacco raised in their lands at tobacco platform No.20, Ongole 1, Prakasam District, as arbitrary and illegal.

¶22

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri S.Srinivas Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2.

¶23

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2, on instructions, submits that the petitioners herein are the unregistered growers of tobacco and therefore, as per the Notification No.S.O.1596 (E), dated 01.07.2008, issued by the Government of India in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 20A, read with Section 8(2)(g) of the Tobacco Board Act, 1975 (4 of 1975), the unregistered growers are liable to pay the penalty of Rs.1/- per Kg and an extra fee of 5% of the proceeds of the sale as service charges. Learned counsel further submitted that the request of the petitioners for sale of their tobacco would be considered in accordance with the said Notification, after the sale of tobacco grown by the registered growers is completed.

¶24

Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties and having regard to the specific stand taken on behalf of the respondents that the

¶25

tobacco unauthorisedly grown by the petitioners would be allowed to be sold by collecting the penalty and service charges, in terms of the Notification of the Government of India, dated 01.07.2008, after the sale of tobacco grown by the registered owners is completed, no further adjudication is necessary in this writ petition.

¶26

Accordingly, Recording the statement of the respondents, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for sale of their Virginia tobacco in terms of the Notification of the Central Government, dated 01.07.2008 after the tobacco grown by the registered growers is sold.

¶27

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

¶28

_____________ G.ROHINI, J

¶29

Dt.03-07-2009

¶30

Note: -

¶31

Issue C.C by 06.7.2009 (B/o) RAR

¶32

THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI

¶33

WRIT PETITION No : 12527 of 2009

¶34

DATED : 03-07-2009

Nalluri Rammurthi, v. The Tobacco Board guntur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nalluri Rammurthi, v. The Tobacco Board guntur

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

B.Sita Rama Murthy Vs The Government of Ap

Vajrala Veera Raghava Reddy Vs Mandal Revenue Officer

M/s. Spin Cot Textiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Cotton Corporation of India Limited

Dosapati Venkata Nageswara Rao Vs The Deputy Superintendent of Police

B.v.Ratnam Naidu, Vs Tirupathi Municipal Corporation

N.Pandu Ranga REddy, Vs The Joint Collector-I, Ranga REddy District