Hyderabad, March 27: Justice CV Nagarjuna Reddy of the AP High Court on Friday adjourned to April 12 a writ petition filed by Obulapuram Mining Corporation questioning the action of the State Government in referring to the CBI an enquiry against it. While the petitioner was represented by Parasaran, former Attorney General, a battery of legal experts including Additional Solicitors General Vivek Tanka for CBI, Ravindran for Central Government and State Advocate General DV Sitaram Murthy appeared for the respondents.
It may be recalled that the OMC had questioned the reference by the State Government as illegal.
Monsanto case posted to March 30
Justice Ramesh Ranganathan of the AP High Court adjourned to March 30 a writ petition filed by Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (I) Ltd., and wanted the Government to confirm whether it intended to determine the trait or royalty fee on Bt-cotton. The multinational company approached the High Court complaining that the Government was considering to determine the rate and that the same was without the authority of law.
In its petition the company stated that as the owner of the Bt-cotton rights it could, while sub-licensing the technical know-how, could fix the trait charges, that it was in the realm of contracts and therefore the Government had no power to interfere with the same. The petitioner would contend that the State Government earlier approached the MRTP and obtained an interim order that the trait rate was pecked at Rs. 900 against an intended Rs.
1,800.
It was also averred that in a writ petition filed by the Lok Satta Party the State Government claimed it had no power. The petitioner therefore contended the intended action of the Government was illegal. The petitioner also pointed out that even the price fixation of Bt-cotton by the State Government was subject matter of a pending writ petition in the court. While the petitioner contended that the action of the Government in enquiring with the dealers was a step towards price control, the court wondered whether it was mere apprehension.
Accordingly the court adjourned the matter to Wednesday for a confirmation on the stance of the Government.
PIL on regularisation of excess land dismissed
A division bench of the AP High Court comprising Justice T Meena Kumari and Justice G Chandraiah on Friday dismissed a public interest writ petition questioning the Government order in ratifying regularisation of excess land under the Urban Land Ceiling Act in favour of P Venkatapathy Raju and another.
Jayakumar Rao, a resident of Vizag, questioned the Government Order earmarking about 2752 sq-mt of prime land in Waltair.
According to the petitioner the basis for the application was on a forged document and since fraud vitiates the application the Government ought to have rejected the claim.
The Government stated that the scope of judicial review was limited and once the fraud was factored in the decision the court would not replace its decision with that of the Government.
Mere signature on cheque not enough to complain
Justice GV Seethapathy of the AP High Court on Friday made it clear that a mere signature on cheque was not sufficient to lodge a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The judge dismissed a petition filed by KVV Prasad Rao on cheque bounce case against Balaji Vishwanath. The petitioner had sought to encash Rs. 25 lakh cheque which was bounced. A complaint before XV Metropolitan Magistrate when the author of the cheque claimed that no consideration had passed through the cheque. Justice Seethapathy upheld the view of the court and declared that it is for the complainant to establish that there was consideration in addition to establishing the signature on the cheque.
–Agencies