Disposed

Jahidaben Badi, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC22 Mar 2017WP/10063/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging vehicle prohibition at a check-post, the Court need not decide on respondent's power. It directs the authority to put the petitioner on notice, afford an opportunity of hearing, and pass orders within two months.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to put petitioner on notice, give opportunity of hearing, and pass orders within two months.

Jahidaben Badi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN

¶2

AND

¶3

THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI

¶4

WRIT PETITION No. 10063 of 2017

¶5

ORDER: (Per VRS,J)

¶6

The petitioner has come up with the present writ petition, challenging the action of the respondents in prohibiting his vehicle bearing registration No.GJ 03 BV 6486 from passing through their check-post.

¶7

Heard Mr. P. Kamalakar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Shaik Jeelani Basha, learned special standing counsel for Commercial Taxes (AP), takes notice for the respondents.

¶8

The petitioner challenges the impugned action, on the ground that there is no power conferred upon the respondents under the Act to prevent a vehicle from passing through a check-post. However, the learned special standing counsel relies upon the Circulars, dated 15.09.2015 and 08.08.2016.

¶9

However, we are of the considered view that for the present, we need not go into the larger question of availability of such a power on the part of the respondents. This is in view of the fact that in identical circumstances, this Court has passed orders, directing the respondents to follow a particular procedure. Therefore, following the same, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to put the

¶10

VRS,J & JUD,,J WP No. 10063 of 2017

¶11

¶12

petitioner on notice, give him an opportunity of hearing, and thereafter, pass orders, in accordance with law, within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶13

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions if any pending in the writ petition shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶14

__________________________ V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J

¶15

J. UMA DEVI, J. 22^nd March, 2017

¶16

Note: Issue C.C. today. (b/o) cbs

¶17

VRS,J & JUD,,J WP No. 10063 of 2017

¶18

¶19

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN  AND

¶20

THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI

¶21

Writ Petition No. 10063 of 2017

(disposed of)

22^nd March, 2017

cbs

VRS,J & JUD,,J WP No. 10063 of 2017

¶26

Jahidaben Badi, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jahidaben Badi, 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

Billa Chinnamma Vs The Principal District Judge, Prakasam District at Ongole.

M/s. Venkata Sai Durga Traders, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Pulimi Raghuram Vs The Principal District Judge

M/s.Pooja Coffee Works, Vs Commercial Tax Officer

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Dr. v. Satyanarayana Reddy

Parasara Mahamadhusen F, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh