Divita Yadav

Facts The Petitioners, a lesbian couple whose relationship was being opposed by their parents who are the 4th and 5th Respondents fled to Chennai from their respective houses in Madurai. The 1st Petitioner is aged about 22 years and she...

This writ petition is filed to declare the impugned order of stop production passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Pollution Control Board vide Order as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri Y Srinivasa Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri N Harinath, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the 1st respondent and Sri V.Surender Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 5 and with their consent; this writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission. The case was heard and decided by Hon’ble Justice Kongara Vijaya Lakshmi and Hon’ble Sri Justice D. Ramesh. 

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction, one more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in interfering and disturbing the activities and trade of the Petitioner in practising Ayurvedic Medicine and in coercing/ forcing/ harassing the Petitioner herein to disclose the stipulated concoction (medical combination) of the ayurvedic/ naturopathic medicine being prepared by the Petitioner to deal with Covid-19, thereby denying the Fundamental Rights guaranteed to the Petitioner as being illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Article 19(1)(d) and (g), 21. And 301 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the Respondents not to interfere with the activities and trade of the Petitioner and also consequently direct the Respondents to consider granting adequate protection to the Petitioner to continue his Pro-bono services to the public.

According to a letter addressed by Sri B.Adinarayana Rao, Senior Advocate, to the Hon’ble Chief Justice/Hon’ble Vacation Judge, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati, dated 15.05.2021 at 5.28 PM by way of a House Motion, a Division Bench was constituted to hear the matter. A perusal of the letter would indicate that the request appears to be for issuance of Habeas Corpus, as the detention of detenu beyond 5.00 PM amounts to illegal detention as his remand was not accepted by the Magistrate. Sri B.Adinarayana Rao, counsel for the Petitioner and Sri P. Sudhakar Reddy Additional Advocate General for the Respondents appeared before the Court. The matter was heard and decided upon by the Hon’ble Sri Justice C.Praveen Kumar.

Appellant is the mother of the respondents. Appellant alleges that two documents were caused to be executed in the names of her daughters (respondents) by perpetrating fraud and misrepresentation regarding the contents of the documents. According to the appellant, her daughters in cahoots with their husbands committed fraud and misrepresentation. And, therefore she approached the trial court with a suit by invoking the provisions under Order XXXIII of the Code for setting aside the two settlement deeds alleged to have been executed by her in the names of the respondents. Also as a consequential relief, sought a permanent prohibitory injunction decree.

The writ petition made directing the respondents to rectify the errors and illegalities pointed out by the petitioners, before issuing a notification to conduct fair and free elections in Eluru Municipal Corporation without waiting for a copy of this order, as requested by the Learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration, to proceed with the process of rectification of errors in Electoral Roll of Eluru Municipal Corporation.

Excerpt On 30th December 2019 the learned trial Judge while acquitting Accused No. 2 (A-2) and Accused No. 3 (A-3) for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,...

Excerpt Aggrieved by the order dated 05.01.2021 passed in I.A.No.61 of 2020 in O.P.No.21 of 2007 on the file of the Cooperative Tribunal, Hyderabad, whereby the Tribunal dismissed the I.A. filed by the Petitioner to condone the delay of 321...

Excerpt A Criminal Revision Case (Crl. R. C) No. 400 of the year 2020, I. A No. 1 of 2021 and Criminal Revision Case (Cr. R. C) No. 401 of 2020, I. A. No. 1 of 2021 filed by the...

Excerpt This Commercial Appeal (COMAP) is filed under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Order XLIII Rule 1(r) and Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying to call for the records which were...