The second respondent is Field Officer of M/s. Star Protection Private Limited, which has been authorized by Media Pro Enterprise India Private Limited to take all remedial legal action including lodging report, filing of F.I.R. on behalf of Media Pro Enterprises India Private Limited to curb the unauthorized access, reception and copyright violation of various channels. M/s. Deccan Communication Network and its Proprietor/Partners, link operations, sub-operators in Bodhan are indulging in illegal and unauthorized re-transmitting by illegally stealing signals and distributing/re-transmitting, thereby committing offences of theft and infringement of copyrights. the petitioner is indulging in illegal and unauthorized re-transmitting by illegally stealing signals and distributing/re-transmitting to its customers thereby cheated the complainant and caused infringement of copyright. Whether the petitioner was distributing/re-transmitting signals to customers in respect of those channels or not; whether it can be possible without a proper authorization from the complainant or not, are the matters required to be investigated into by police. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner cannot retransmit the signals to its customers unless the complainant authorizes to utilize the services, has to be decided during investigation. Therefore, there are no grounds to quash the impugned proceedings.

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU

 

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 891 of 2013

 

O R D E R:

         These Criminal Petitions are filed seeking to quash the proceedings in crime no.32 of 2013 of Bodhan police station, Nizamabad District registered for the offences punishable under Sections 51, 63 and 65 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and 379 IPC.

2.      The second respondent lodged a report before police alleging as follows:

         The second respondent is Field Officer of M/s. Star Protection Private Limited, which has been authorized by Media Pro Enterprise India Private Limited to take all remedial legal action including lodging report, filing of F.I.R. on behalf of Media Pro Enterprises India Private Limited to curb the unauthorized access, reception and copyright violation of various channels.  M/s. Deccan Communication Network and its Proprietor/Partners, link operations, sub-operators in Bodhan are indulging in illegal and unauthorized re-transmitting by illegally stealing signals and distributing/re-transmitting, thereby committing offences of theft and infringement of copyrights.  Media Pro Enterprise Private Limited sent notice to the said network vide letter dated 4.1.2013 to cease and desist from indulging in such activities.  However, it continued to commit the above offences.  The complainant collected evidence by way of video-graphing of such illegal act of telecast of channels on 28.1.2013 at Bodhan Town.  Hence, the complaint.  

3.      Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that unless the complainant gives authorization to utilize the services, the petitioner cannot retransmit the signals; that after the existing period of licence was over, the complainant demanded huge amount and as the petitioner failed to pay that amount, a false case is foisted, and hence, continuation of the impugned proceedings is nothing but abuse of process of court.

4.      On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent-State contended that the allegations in the complaint made out a prima facie case for the offences alleged, and so, there are no grounds to quash the impugned proceedings.

5.      Inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to prevent abuse of process of court or to secure ends of justice or to give effect to the order passed under the Code.   At the initial stage of investigation, the First Information Report is sought to be quashed.  There cannot be any dispute that if the allegations in the First Information Report do not disclose a prima facie case of the offences alleged, then only further investigation is nothing but abuse of process of Court.  At this stage, it is not necessary to sift or weigh the contents in the First Information Report.  If the Investigating Officer suspects that a prima facie cognizable offence is committed, then it is his statutory duty to conduct investigation and that duty cannot be curtailed or interdicted exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

6.      The allegation is that the petitioner is indulging in illegal and unauthorized re-transmitting by illegally stealing signals and distributing/re-transmitting to its customers thereby cheated the complainant and caused infringement of copyright.  Whether the petitioner was distributing/re-transmitting signals to customers in respect of those channels or not; whether it can be possible without a proper authorization from the complainant or not, are the matters required to be investigated into by police.  The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner cannot retransmit the signals to its customers unless the complainant authorizes to utilize the services, has to be decided during investigation.  Therefore, there are no grounds to quash the impugned proceedings.

7.      The Criminal Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.  Observations, if any, made in this order are only for the purpose of disposal of this Criminal Petition, and uninfluenced by the observations, police shall conduct investigation in accordance with law. 

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in the Criminal Petition shall stand dismissed.   

_______________

K.C.BHANU, J

6.2.2013

DRK

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 891 of 2013

6.2.2013

Since petitioner is mother of the de facto complainant, Section 498-A of IPC has no application.- The petitioner is the mother of the de facto complainant and Section 498-A of IPC is applicable when there is a cruelty by the husband or relative of the husband. Since petitioner is mother of the de facto complainant, Section 498-A of IPC has no application. Similarly the question of demanding dowry under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act does not arise. But the allegation is that on 24.07.2012, the present petitioner came from Kuwait and allegedly beat the Panaboyina Penchalaiah with a stool, as a result, he sustained bleeding injury. So therefore, that allegation made out a prima-facie offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC against the petitioner.

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

CRIMINAL PETITION No.934 OF 2013

ORDER:

         

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.3 of 2013 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nandalur, Y.S.R Kadapa District which was taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 324, 498-A, 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’).

2.       Heard.

3.       The allegations in the complaint would go to show that the petitioner is the mother of the respondent No.2. At the time of respondent No.2’s marriage, she was given 20 tulas of gold and cash of Rs.2,50,000/-(rupees two lakhs fifty thousand only) towards dowry by her parents; that after having lead a marital life for two years, the husband of respondent No.2 started harassing for extra money/dowry, then respondent No.2 was given a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(rupees one lakh only) by her parents for establishing a paint shop in order to enable her husband to eke out his livelihood; that after few days, he turned the name board of the shop as it suffered losses and that again after few days, he started harassing respondent No.2 both mentally and physically and demanded for extra money/dowry and that her parents gave another sum of Rs.50,000/- for purchase of sumo to eke out livelihood and that after sometime, he lost that sumo also and that even then he did not mend his ways and on continuous harassment, her parents got conducted a panchayat(village Court) and tried to pacify him and even after then, he has not chosen to correct himself.

4.       The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Sections 498-A of IPC and 3 and 4 of the Act have no application to the case of the present petitioner and therefore the continuation of proceedings is nothing but abuse of process of court. 

5.       The petitioner is the mother of the de facto complainant and Section 498-A of IPC is applicable when there is a cruelty by the husband or relative of the husband.  Since petitioner is mother of the de facto complainant, Section 498-A of IPC has no application. Similarly the question of demanding dowry under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act does not arise.  But the allegation is that on 24.07.2012, the present petitioner came from Kuwait and allegedly beat the Panaboyina Penchalaiah with a stool, as a result, he sustained bleeding injury.  So therefore, that allegation made out a prima-facie offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC against the petitioner.

5.       Therefore, prima facie offences punishable under Sections 498-A of IPC and 3 and 4 of the Act have no application to the petitioner. However, prima facie case is made out against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC.

6.       Therefore, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed quashing the charge sheet for the offences under Section 498-A of IPC and 3 and 4 of the Act and the Criminal Petition is dismissed in respect of the offence under Section 324 of IPC. Miscellaneous Petitions if any pending, in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

______________________

JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

06.02.2013

scs/ksm

 

Order VI Rule 17 CPC- In view of amendment to CPC, no amendment can be allowed after trial has been commenced.

                        THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

                        CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.421 OF 2013

ORDER:

          This petition is filed against the order, dated
13-12-2012 in I.A.No.2041 of 2012 in O.S.No.249 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupathi, whereunder and whereby the application filed by the petitioner-defendant under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to permit her to amend the written statement, was dismissed.

          2.  Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the proposed amendment will not change the nature of the suit and hence, he prays to allow the petition.

3. The above application was filed when the matter was coming up for the evidence of defendant’s side.  In view of amendment to CPC, no amendment can be allowed after trial has been commenced. The case of the petitioner does not fall under proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC.  Anyhow, the point raised by the petitioner can as well be agitated before the trial Court. 

4. With the above observation, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed.

          _­­­_______________

K.C.BHANU, J

DATED: 22-03-2013

Hsd

 

L.A.Act - wrong payment - remedy is a suit not a writ= writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in paying compensation to respondent No.3 as illegal and arbitrary.= It is not the pleaded case of the petitioner that in response to the public notices issued under Sections 9(1) and 10(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”), he has made claim for payment of compensation asserting his right as the owner of the said properties. The petitioner has also not pleaded that at least after the award was passed, he has made any request for reference of the dispute to the competent civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. Having not claimed his rights at an appropriate time, the petitioner appeared to have approached respondent No.2 after the award was passed and compensation was paid to respondent No.3. I am, therefore, of the opinion that no Mandamus can be issued to respondent No.2 as prayed for by the petitioner. The petitioner may, however, be free to approach the competent civil Court for recovery of the compensation amount from respondent No.3.

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

WRIT PETITION No.3209 of 2013

Date: 05.02.2013

Between:

R. Devadranath Reddy                                       ... Petitioner

And

The Collector,

Mahabubnagar District and two others            ... Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner          : Sri M. Damodar Reddy

Counsel for the Respondents     : Assistant Government

                                                   Pleader for Land Acquisition.

                                               

The Court made the following:
ORDER:

          This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in paying compensation to respondent No.3 as illegal and arbitrary.

          It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that he is the rightful owner of land admeasuring Acs.3-25 guntas and   Acs.2-15 guntas in Survey Nos.386 and 244 respectively, of Kannaiahpally Village, Kothakota Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, and that respondent No. 2 has illegally paid compensation to respondent No.3.

A perusal of the representation made by the petitioner to respondent No.2 shows that even though the petitioner is the rightful owner of the said properties, cheques were issued in favour of respondent No.3 without notice to the petitioner.

It is not the pleaded case of the petitioner that in response to the public notices issued under Sections 9(1) and 10(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”), he has made claim for payment of compensation asserting his right as the owner of the said properties.  The petitioner has also not pleaded that at least after the award was passed, he has made any request for reference of the dispute to the competent civil Court under Section 18 of the Act.  Having not claimed his rights at an appropriate time, the petitioner appeared to have approached respondent No.2 after the award was passed and compensation was paid to respondent No.3.  I am, therefore, of the opinion that no Mandamus can be issued to respondent No.2 as prayed for by the petitioner.  The petitioner may, however, be free to approach the competent civil Court for recovery of the compensation amount from respondent No.3.

Subject to the liberty given as above, the writ petition is dismissed.

As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.3973 of 2013 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed as infructuous.

  ________________________

                                       C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

Date: 05.02.2013

SSV/DR

WRIT FOR STAY PENDING APPEALS ECT DUE TO NON-FUNCTION OF BANGALORE TRIBUNAL., = the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal is not functioning on account of a vacancy in the office of the Technical Member;= In some of the writ petitions a Circular dated 1-1-2013 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi has been challenged, whereunder a generic directive is issued to Revenue to initiate recovery proceedings 30 days after filing of the appeal, if no stay were granted. = ineffectual functioning of the Tribunal= not to initiate any coercive measures for recovery of the Central Excise liability or Service Tax liability or interest and penalties, as the case may be, as assessed in the Orders-in-Original or as confirmed in the appeals, as the case may be, pending disposal of the applications filed by the petitioners for waiver of pre-deposit and wherever filed, the applications for stay of the Central Excise or Service Tax, interest and penalties, as the case may be.

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE

 GODA RAGHURAM

AND

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE

 M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

Writ Petition Nos. 4477, 4482, 4500, 4541, 4542, 4544
and 4545 of 2013

Dated: 14-02-2013

Between:

M/s Lee Pharma Limited, rep. by its

Managing Director A.Venkata Reddy.

…Petitioner

And

Union of India, rep. by its

Secretary, Ministry of Finance,

Department of Revenue,

New Delhi and others.

…Respondents.

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

AND

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

Writ Petition No. 4477, 4482, 4500, 4541, 4542, 4544, and 4545 of 2013

Common order (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram)

          Heard the counsel for the petitioner and
Sri A. Rajashekar Reddy, Sri Gopala Krishna Gokhaley and
Sri Jalakam Sathyaram, learned Standing counsel for the respondents in the several writ petitions.

          As the core of the grievances presented in these writ petitions falls within a narrow compass in so far as the judicial review is concerned and shares a common characteristic, we dispose of the several writ petitions by this common order.

          Orders-in-Original were passed under the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or for levy and collection of Service Tax under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 against the several petitioners.  In some of the matters, petitioners had preferred appeals against the Orders-in-Original, which were rejected. Aggrieved by the Orders in appeal or Orders-in-Original, as the case may be, further appeals were preferred to the CESTAT, Bangalore Bench (for short ‘the Tribunal’). 

          Along with the respective appeals petitioners preferred applications for waiver of the pre-deposit and applications for stay of tax as determined by the Orders-in-Original or as confirmed in Orders in Appeals, as the case may be.  It is the common refrain in the writ petitions, reiterated in oral argument by the learned counsel that the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal is not functioning on account of a vacancy in the office of the Technical Member; and the Tribunal is unable therefore to take up the petitioners applications for waiver for pre-deposit and for grant of stay of levy of the tax, interest and penalties, as the case may be.  In some of the writ petitions a Circular dated 1-1-2013 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi has been challenged, whereunder a generic directive is issued to Revenue to initiate recovery proceedings 30 days after filing of the appeal, if no stay were granted.  

Learned counsel for the petitioners however do not wish to pursue the challenge to the Circular in these writ petitions and are satisfied if this Court were to dispose of the writ petitions directing Revenue not to initiate coercive measures till the Tribunal takes up and disposes of the applications preferred by them, seeking waiver of the pre-deposit under Section 35-F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the applications for grant of stay of collection of the Tax, interest and penalties, as determined, by the Orders-in-Original or as confirmed in orders in appeal, as the case may be.

          Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and in the context of the current ineffectual functioning of the Tribunal, a fact not disputed by the Revenue, 

we consider it appropriate to dispose of the writ petitions directing the respondents not to initiate any coercive measures for recovery of the Central Excise liability or Service Tax liability or interest and penalties, as the case may be, as assessed in the Orders-in-Original or as confirmed in the appeals, as the case may be, pending disposal of the applications filed by the petitioners for waiver of pre-deposit and wherever filed, the applications for stay of the Central Excise or Service Tax, interest and penalties, as the case may be.  

The liability of the petitioners to remit the tax, interest and penalties, as assessed or confirmed, as the case may be, shall be subject to orders to be passed by the Tribunal in the interlocutory applications preferred by the petitioners.

          The writ petitions are disposed of as above.  But in the circumstances without costs.

_________________________

GODA RAGHURAM, J

14^th February, 2013.

_______________________________

M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, J

GRR

right to vote= Under Section 25 (1-A) (d) of the Act, a member of a Society shall not be eligible to exercise the right to vote, if he is default in the payment of any amount due in cash or kind to the Society for such period as may be prescribed. In view of the aforesaid provision of law and as it is not in dispute that the petitioner-Society is default in payment of amount due to the 2nd respondent-Bank, the former is not eligible to exercise its franchise in the elections to the 2nd respondent-Bank. In any event, it is to be noticed that if the name of the petitioner-Society is not included in the voters list, it can as well raise a dispute before the Election Tribunal.

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

WRIT PETITION No.4549 of 2013

ORDER :

This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the order dated 05.02.2013 passed by District Co-operative Central Bank Limited, Nizamabad, 2^nd respondent herein.

The petitioner is a Society registered under the A.P.
Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short “the Act”) and a member Society of the 2^nd respondent-Bank. Elections are notified for the purpose of holding elections to Primary Agricultural Co-operative Societies as well as District Co-operative Central Banks.

It is the case of the petitioner-Society that by the impugned order, it was informed that all the overdue amounts should be cleared before 12.02.2013, in default, it shall be treated that the Society is ineligible to exercise its franchise in the elections to the 2^ndrespondent-Bank. The grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned order deprives its right to vote in the elections to the 2^ndrespondent-Bank, that too, without giving any adequate time to pay the amounts due.

Under Section 25 (1-A) (d) of the Act, a member of a Society shall not be eligible to exercise the right to vote, if he is default in the payment of any amount due in cash or kind to the Society for such period as may be prescribed.

In view of the aforesaid provision of law and as it is not in dispute that the petitioner-Society is default in payment of amount due to the 2^nd respondent-Bank, the former is not eligible to exercise its franchise in the elections to the 2^nd respondent-Bank. In any event, it is to be noticed that if the name of the petitioner-Society is not included in the voters list, it can as well raise a dispute before the Election Tribunal.

The writ petition is devoid of merit and, accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, filed along with the writ petition shall stand closed.

________________________

                                            R. SUBHASH REDDY, J

18^th February, 2013

cbs

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

WRIT PETITION No.4549 of 2013

18^th February, 2013

cbs

The Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, provide for levy of penalty at the rate of Rs.20,000/-, per heavy goods vehicle. On payment of penalty, the vehicle can be released. However, if the vehicle was involved in similar crimes on earlier occasion, the facility would not be available.

WP 4668 / 2013

WPSR 24828 / 2013

PETITIONER RESPONDENT P.V. SESHUBABU, VISAKHAPATNAM   VS S.H.O., VSP DIST & 2 OT PET.ADV. : NAVEEN KUMAR RESP.ADV. : GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY SUBJECT: MINES, INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE (MISC.MATTERS) DISTRICT:  VISAKHAPATNAM

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY

WRIT PETITION No.4668 of 2013

ORDER:

The petitioner claims to be the owner of Goods Vehicle bearing No. AP 31 X 7691.  It was seized by the 1^st respondent on 12-02-2013, on the ground that it was used in transporting sand without valid permit.  Crime No.47 of 2013 was registered.  The petitioner challenges the same.

2.  Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

3.  The only ground on which the vehicle was seized is that it was used in transporting sand without valid permit.   The Andhra PradeshMinor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, provide for levy of penalty at the rate of Rs.20,000/-, per heavy goods vehicle.  On payment of penalty, the vehicle can be released.  However, if the vehicle was involved in similar crimes on earlier occasion, the facility would not be available.

4.  Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the 1^st respondent that, in case the vehicle in question was not involved in similar offences or acts on earlier occasion and was not levied any penalty, it shall be released on payment of Rs.20,000/- (twenty thousand).  In case, the vehicle was involved in similar offences or acts on earlier occasion, the respondents need not release the vehicle and it shall be open to them to take necessary steps in accordance with law.  For that purpose, the petitioner shall file an affidavit stating whether or not the vehicle was seized on earlier occasion, on the same allegations. 

5.  The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petition shall also stand disposed of.  There shall be no order as to costs.

____________________

L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J   

February 15, 2013.

Note: Issue operative portion by

wire at party’s costs.

B/O.KTL 

EDUCATION = affiliation/permission for the academic year 2012-13 to start D.Ed., course.= It is well settled that once recognition is granted by the NCTE further steps of affiliation should normally follow as per Section 14 (6) of the NCTE Act, 1993. The role of the State is very formal and the State is not expected to obstruct the commencement of admission process and academic course once recognition is granted and affiliation is found to be acceptable. It is true that under G.O.Ms.No.104, dated 24.11.2007, the Affiliation Committee is required to ensure that conditions of recognition and affiliation are fulfilled by the institutions and submit its recommendation to the Government for its approval. Admittedly this exercise has been done in the case of the petitioner-institutions on 6.02.2013 by which date the petitioners had complied all the requirements. No apparent reason is forthcoming from the respondents for not granting affiliation immediately thereafter. It is not in dispute that the counseling was still in progress as on 6.02.2013 and in fact the last date for the students to report to the colleges was on 28.02.2013.- For the foregoing reasons, these writ petitions are allowed and consequently a direction shall go to the 1st respondent to accord affiliation to the petitioner-institutions to run D.Ed., course so as to enable them to admit the students for the academic year 2012-13. No costs.

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI

W.P.Nos.4968, 4950, 4504, 4663, 4700, 4790, 4970, 5116, 5122, 5275, 5279, 5526,6386 and 6388 of 2013

W.P.No.4968/2013

Between:

1.               Shilpa Elementary Teacher Education rep., by its Secretary/Correspondent, Dr. Ch. V. Narayana Rao, and others.

PETITIONERS

AND

1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary, Primary Education Department, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad-500 022, and others.

RESPONDENTS

ORDER:

1.       All these writ petitions are connected and hence there are being disposed of by this common order at the stage of admission after hearing Sri S. Satyam Reddy, learned Senior Counsel instructed by Smt. K.V. Rajasree, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, and Sri S. Sriram, Sri S. Girimoji Rao, Smt. Y. Anupama Devi, Sri S. Surender Reddy, Smt. P. Rajeswari, the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, the learned Government Pleader for School Education and Sri K. Ramakant Reddy, learned counsel appearing for NCTE.

2.       The petitioners in these writ petitions are educational societies, which are running educational institutions. They are aggrieved by the action of the 1^st respondent-State Government in not granting affiliation/permission for the academic year 2012-13 to start D.Ed., course.

3.       The facts, which are not in dispute, are that National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) accorded recognition to the petitioner-institutions to run D.Ed., course for the academic year 2012-13. These recognitions were given in the months of August/September/October 2012. The petitioner-institutions, thereafter, submitted applications to the State Government seeking affiliation during the months of September/October/November 2012. The proposals were duly verified through the inspection teams. After being satisfied with the infrastructure provided by the petitioner-institutions, the Affiliation Committee recommended the State Government for granting affiliation. The Committee, though processed the applications for the academic year 2012-13, recommended affiliations for the academic year 2013-14. The petitioners, who have obtained recognition from the NCTE for the academic year 2012-13, are aggrieved by this action of the Affiliation Committee. They contend that they are entitled for affiliation for the academic year 2012-13.

4.       From a perusal of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the Affiliation Committee has taken the decision to recommend affiliation for 2013-14 because there will be shortage of working days if the affiliation is granted for the academic year 2012-13. According to the respondents there should be at least 200 working days in an academic year and that as the number of working days will fall short, it is not in the interest of the students to give affiliation for the academic year 2012-13.

5.       It is well settled that once recognition is granted by the NCTE further steps of affiliation should normally follow as per Section 14 (6) of the NCTE Act, 1993. The role of the State is very formal and the State is not expected to obstruct the commencement of admission process and academic course once recognition is granted and affiliation is found to be acceptable.

6.       It is true that under G.O.Ms.No.104, dated 24.11.2007, the Affiliation Committee is required to ensure that conditions of recognition and affiliation are fulfilled by the institutions and submit its recommendation to the Government for its approval. Admittedly this exercise has been done in the case of the petitioner-institutions on 6.02.2013 by which date the petitioners had complied all the requirements. No apparent reason is forthcoming from the respondents for not granting affiliation immediately thereafter. It is not in dispute that the counseling was still in progress as on 6.02.2013 and in fact the last date for the students to report to the colleges was on 28.02.2013.

7.       It is relevant to mention that in all these cases interim orders were granted by this Court during 16.02.2013 to 26.02.2013 to include the names of the petitioner-institutions in the list of colleges for allotment of candidates in the 3^rd phase of counseling. There was ample time for according affiliations. Therefore, the objection that there will be shortage of working days from the prescribed 200 days does not stand to reasoning. Admittedly, counseling was done till 8.02.2013 and admissions were given till 28.02.2013. Further more, the material placed before this Court shows that in the past, in similar matters, institutions were permitted to make spot admissions and they were required to complete the number of working days by working extra hours on working days, on public holidays and also in summer vacation. There is no valid reason why the Government should not extended the same benefit to the petitioner-institutions. Further more, huge investments have gone into creating infrastructure by the petitioner-institutions and it will be unfair to ask them to wait for one more year and it frustrates the NCTE’s recognition for present academic year as well.

8.       For the foregoing reasons, these writ petitions are allowed and consequently a direction shall go to the 1^st respondent to accord affiliation to the petitioner-institutions to run D.Ed., course so as to enable them to admit the students for the academic year 2012-13. No costs.

9.       In view of disposal of writ petitions, W.P.M.P.No.6206/2013 in W.P.No.4968/2013; W.V.M.P.No.863/2013 and W.P.M.P.No.6178/2013 in W.P.No.4950/2013; W.V.M.P.No.862/2013 and W.P.M.P.No.5626/2013 in W.P.No.4504/2013; W.P.M.P.No.5825/2013 in W.P.No.4663/2013; W.V.M.P.No.856/2013 and W.P.M.P.No.5870/2013 in W.P.No.4700/2013; W.V.M.P.No.865/2013 and W.P.M.P.No.5991/2013 in W.P.No.4790/2013; W.V.M.P.No.867/2013 and W.P.M.P.No.6208/2013 in W.P.No.4970/2013; W.V.M.P.No.864/2013 and W.P.M.P.No.6386/2013 in W.P.No.5116/2013; W.V.M.P.No.860/2013 and W.P.M.P.No.6393/2013 in W.P.No.5722/2013; W.V.M.P.No.861/2013 and W.P.M.P.No.6566/2013 in W.P.No.5275/2013; W.V.M.P.No.868/2013 and W.P.M.P.No.6571/2013 in W.P.No.5279/2013; W.P.M.P.No.6894/2013 in W.P.No.5526/2013; W.P.M.P.No.7990/2013 in W.P.No.6386/2013; W.P.M.P.No.7992/2013 in W.P.No.6388/2013 are dismissed as unnecessary.

_________________

NOUSHAD ALI, J

20^th March, 2013

Js.

additional issue be considered after amendment of written statement as the entire case runs around the firm - However, these three applications were filed to frame an additional issue as to whether the suits are maintainable without impleading the proper party “Das and Partners”, a registered Firm, as a defendant. The Court below after considering the written statements, found that there were no such pleas in the written statements and without there being a plea and as the promissory notes are said to have been denied, dismissed the applications.= when the suits were filed alleging that the revision petitioner/defendant is the Managing Partner of “Das and Partners” Firm, the question will be as to whether the Firm is a necessary party or not. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the revision petitioner/defendant is permitted to take amendment of the written statement with regard to the above plea sought to be framed as an additional issue, and thereafter, the Court below shall consider and dispose of the suits by framing necessary issue.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH
AT HYDERABAD

MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND THIRTEEN

 

PRESENT

 

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO

 

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.6515/2012, 27 & 125/2013

                                                                                

 

Between:

Gadiraju Suryanarayana Raju

..... PETITIONER

And

Katari Srinivasa Varma and 2 others

.....RESPONDENTS

The Court made the following:

                                                                                 

 

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO

 

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.6515/2012, 27 & 125/2013

COMMON ORDER:

These three revision petitions are filed against the orders passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam in three applications filed under Order 14 Rule-5(1) CPC in three suits viz., O.S.Nos.294/2009, 230/2009 and 231/2009 respectively.

The three suits were filed on the basis of the promissory notes said to have been executed by the revision petitioner herein on behalf of “Das and Partners”.

The revision petitioner/defendant has taken several pleas and pleaded that the promissory notes are not supported by consideration. However, these three applications were filed to frame an additional issue as to whether the suits are maintainable without impleading the proper party “Das and Partners”, a registered Firm, as a defendant.

The Court below after considering the written statements, found that there were no such pleas in the written statements and without there being a plea and as the promissory notes are said to have been denied, dismissed the applications.

In fact, there are several allegations made in the written statements touching on the dealings between the plaintiffs and the defendant, and therefore, in view of the above circumstances, when the suits were filed alleging that the revision petitioner/defendant is the Managing Partner of “Das and Partners” Firm, the question will be as to whether the Firm is a necessary party or not. 

Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the revision petitioner/defendant is permitted to take amendment of the written statement with regard to the above plea sought to be framed as an additional issue, and thereafter, the Court below shall consider and dispose of the suits by framing necessary issue.

Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside and these three Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of.  Pending miscellaneous petitions in these three civil revision petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.  No order as to costs.

____________________________

N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J

Dated: 11.03.2013

Dsr