Karanam Rambabu v. The Stateof A.P
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- A.P.Forest Act, 1967 s. 59(1)(ii)
Judgment
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.B.Prudvy Kumar Counsel for the Respondents: Govt. Pleader for Forests The Court made the following: Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent No.2, in disposing of the petitioner’s appeal, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner’s auto, bearing registration No.AP 5 TT 7024, was allegedly engaged in transportation of rosewood logs. Respondent No.3 passed Order, dated 12-01-2010, whereby he directed compounding of the offence under Section 59 (1) (ii) of the A.P.Forest Act,
1967. The petitioner claimed that feeling aggrieved by the said order, he filed a statutory appeal before respondent No.2 on 25-02-2010. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.2 has not disposed of the said appeal so far. Even according to the petitioner, he filed appeal only towards the end of February, 2010. Respondent No.2, who is the appellate authority, is required to have reasonable time for disposal of the appeal. Accordingly, respondent No.2 is directed to dispose of the appeal stated to have been filed by the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.8478 of 2010, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. _____________________ C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J Dated 23rd March, 2010
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
A.P.Forest Act, 1967 — s. 59(1)(ii).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 23 Mar 2010.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.