THE ANDHRA PRADESH LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ACT, 2005

NO. 1 OF 2006 [ 11th January, 2006.]

An Act to provide for the creation of Legislative Council for the State of Andhra Pradesh and for matters supplemental, incidental and consequential thereto.

BE it enacted by Parliament in the Fifty- sixth Year of the Republic of India as follows:-






1. Short title.- This Act may be called the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Council Act, 2005 .
2. Definitions.- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, each of the words and expressions used herein and not defined but defined in the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (43 of 1950 ), shall have the same meaning as in that Act.
3. Creation of Legislative Council for Andhra Pradesh.-
(1) As from such date as the President may by order appoint, there shall be a Legislative Council for the State of Andhra Pradesh; and as from that date, in sub- clause (a) of clause (1) of article 168, after the words'' States of'', the words'' Andhra Pradesh,'', shall be inserted.
(2) In the said Council, there shall be 90 seats of which-
(a) the numbers to be filled by persons elected by the electorates referred to in sub- clauses (a), (b) and (c) of clause (3) of article 171 shall be 31, 8 and 8 respectively;
(b) the number to be filled by persons elected by the members of the Legislative Assembly of Andhra Pradesh in accordance with the provisions of sub- clause (d) of the said clause shall be 31; and
(c) the number to be filled by persons nominated by the Governor of Andhra Pradesh in accordance with the provisions of sub- caluse (e) of that clause shall be 12.
(3) As soon as may be after the commencement of this Act, the President, after consultation with the Election Commission, shall, by order, determine-
(a) the constituencies into which the State of Andhra Pradesh shall be divided for the purpose of elections to the said Council under each of the sub- clauses (a), (b) and (c) of clause (3) of article 171;
(b) the extent of each constituency; and
(c) the number of seats to be allotted to each constituency.
(4) As soon as may be after such determination, steps shall be taken to constitute the said Council in accordance with the provisions of this Act, the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (43 of 1950 ) and the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (43 of 1951 ).
4. Amendment of Third Schedule and Fourth Schedule of Act 43 of 1950 .- In the Representation of the People Act, 1950 ,-
(a) in the Third Schedule, before entry No. 2 relating to Bihar, the following entry shall be inserted, namely:-" 1. Andhra Pradesh 90 31 8 8 31 12";
(b) in the Fourth Schedule, before the heading" BIHAR", the following heading and entries shall be inserted, namely:-" ANDHRA PRADESH
1. Municipal Corporations.
2. Municipalities.
3. Nagar Panchayats.
4. Cantonment Boards.
5. Zila Praja Parishads.
6. Mandal Praja Parishads.".
5. Amendment of section 15A of Act 43 of 1951 .- In section 15A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 , for the words and figures" under the Legislative Councils Act, 1957 ", the words and figures" under the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Council Act, 2005 " shall be substituted. T. K. VISWANATHAN, Secy. to the Govt. of India.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.