Telangana High Court
WP/40886/2014 of Lingineni Krishna Murthy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Secretary on 31 December 2014
SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.40886 of 2014 Dated: 31.12.2014 Between: Lingineni Krishna Murthy. .. Petitioner and State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. .. Respondents Counsel for the
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.40886 of 2014
Dated: 31.12.2014
Between:
Lingineni Krishna Murthy.
.. Petitioner andState of Andhra Pradesh,Represented by its Secretary,Department of Agriculture,Secretariat, Hyderabadand others. .. Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.M. Sobha Krishna Counsel for the respondents : GP for Agriculture (AP)
The court made the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed with the grievance that respondent No.4has been permitting weighing of citrus fruits brought by the farmers bydeviating from the earlier practice of counting.
Notice No.AMC/T/116A/2014, dated 04.12.2014, issued byrespondent No.4, on which reliance has been placed by the petitioner,does not show that for the first time it has deviated from the practice ofcounting. On the contrary, the said notice was issued on the premisethat the practice of weighing the citrus fruits is already in vogue and, tosafeguard the farmers’ interests, one of the Commission Agents, byname, M.Ramakrishna was directed to use electronic weighingmachine only.
The petitioner has averred that he has made a representation torespondent No.4. However, no copy of such representation has beenfiled. As the issue relating to the mode of transaction in respect ofagricultural produce needs to be first decided by respondent No.4, thepetitioner is permitted to make a detailed representation to it. Withinone month from the date of receipt of such representation, respondentNo.4 shall examine the same, take a decision and communicate thesame to the petitioner.
Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.51229
of
2014, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, shall stand disposed of asinfructuous.
_____________________
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
31.12.2014v v