Disposed

Ramanjaneya Vara Prasad, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC25 Jan 2017WP/2400/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the prohibition of a vehicle from passing through a check-post was disposed of. The court directed the respondents to issue notice, provide an opportunity of hearing, and pass orders within two months, rather than adjudicating the vendors' statutory power.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; respondents directed to provide notice and opportunity of hearing and pass orders within two months.

Ramanjaneya Vara Prasad, Vs The State of Andhra… — 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. 2400 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.AP 27TY 0468 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

¶10

VRS,J & JUD,,J WP No. 2400 of 2017

¶11

¶12

to follow a particular procedure. Therefore, following the same, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to put the 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.
25 th January, 2017
cbs

¶16

VRS,J & JUD,,J WP No. 2400 of 2017

¶17

¶18

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN  AND

¶19

THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI

¶20

Writ Petition No. 2400 of 2017

¶21

(disposed of)

¶22

25^th January, 2017

¶23

cbs

Ramanjaneya Vara Prasad, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramanjaneya Vara Prasad, 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

The Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Vs Shri B v Subba Reddy

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Suryavanshi Finance and Investments P. Ltd.

M/s. Sree Veera Brahmendra Swamy Spinning Mills Private Ltd. Vs Commercial Tax Officer Chilakaluripet Guntur District

Commissioner of I.T. Act Vs MOhd. Ataullah

J.Ramesh S/o. Late J.Kankaiah Vs The High Court of Telangana And

M/s. Feno Plast Ltd. Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax