Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.80 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Alli Bhaskar And Others vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 2 July, 1997
In the second petition, the learned Single Judge did not examine the factual matrix of the case, but quashed the confiscation of black jaggery by simply observing that the petitioner's case is covered by the ratio of the judgment of another Single Bench in Ulli Bhaskar v. State of A.P. 's case (supra).
Ganesh Traders vs District Collector, Karimnagar And ... on 12 November, 2001
27. We are further of the view that the learned Single Judge committed serious error by nullifying the confiscation of black jaggery ignoring the law laid down by the majority of the Full Bench in Ganesh Traders v. District Collector, Karimnagar's case (supra). Undisputedly, the respondent does not have licence for manufacture, possession or sale of excisable articles. The facts brought on the record disclose that what the petitioner is said to have sold to Laxmi Kirana Merchants is jaggery weighing 60.11 quintals, though, as a matter of fact, the goods turned out to be black jaggery. The plea of the respondent that the goods were being transported from Kamareddy to Kataram and that the driver had missed the route was per se false and the Deputy Commissioner did not commit any illegality by refusing to accept the same because it is well known that Kamareddy to Kataram route is from Nizamabad to Karimnagar whereas Burugupally Thanda, Jaipur Mandal is in Adilabad. The two places are in opposite directions i.e., south and north of Karimnagar District and, therefore, it was impossible for the driver to miss the route and take the goods to Burugupally Thanda instead of Kataram. That apart, the statement made by Sri G. Srinivas to the effect that the black jaggery was meant to be delivered at Burugupally Thanda is sufficient to negate the story set up by the respondent. For the reasons best known to it, the respondent did not file affidavit of the driver Sri G. Srinivas to controvert the observations contained in order dated 11-2-2005 passed by the Commissioner. Therefore, the inference drawn by the Deputy Commissioner that the respondent had transported the goods for being delivered to LD. liquor manufacturers cannot be termed as erroneous or totally wide of the mark so as to warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.