Guru Bhaskara Rao, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2021 Latest Caselaw 5506 AP

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI



HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE
                                        &

         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY


                        WRIT APPEAL No.126 of 2019

                              (Through physical mode)

Guru Bhaskara Rao S/o. Late Satyanarayana,
Aged 68 years, Business, Residing at D.No.8-97,
Panhayathi Street, Aganampudi,
Visakhapatnam - 530045.
                                                        .. Appellant

       Versus


The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Municipal Administration,
Andhra Pradesh State Secretariat,
Amaravathi, Guntur District, A.P. and others.
                                                        .. Respondents

Counsel for the appellant : Mr. E.V.V.S. Ravi Kumar, for Mr. S. Ram Babu

Counsel for respondent No.1 : GP for Municipal Admn.& Urb.Dev.

Counsel for respondents 2 to 5 : Mr. S. Lakshminarayana Reddy

ORAL JUDGMENT

Dt: 27.12.2021

(per Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)

This writ appeal is preferred against the order dated 12.03.2019

passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.2574 of 2019, whereby the

writ petition preferred by the appellant herein was dismissed with costs of

Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) payable by the

appellant/writ petitioner to the High Court Legal Services Authority within a

period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, Mr. E.V.V.S. Ravi

Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/writ petitioner, submits

that the appellant/writ petitioner does not wish to pursue this appeal. He,

however, submits that as the counsel appeared for the appellant/writ

petitioner before the writ court argued the case in Telugu, the learned single

Judge imposed the costs of Rs.25,000/- to be payable by the appellant/writ

petitioner and the same may be set aside.

This Court has granted interim suspension of the order of the learned

single Judge insofar as payment of costs, vide order dated 04.06.2019.

As the appellant/writ petitioner is not pressing the appeal against

dismissal of the writ petition on merits, we need not venture into the merits

of the matter. So far as imposition of costs is concerned, a perusal of the

order of the learned single Judge would show that the learned single Judge

has observed that when the Court posed a query, the counsel for the writ

petitioner stoutly argued the case in Telugu, belittling the proceedings of the

Court. As can be seen from the order, it appears that the counsel for the

appellant/writ petitioner has answered in Telugu to a query posed by the

Court and it is not that he has argued the entire case in Telugu. In any

event, though the language of the High Court is English, arguing in a

regional language/mother tongue cannot be said to be belittling the

proceedings of the High Court. On due consideration and in the facts and

circumstances of the case, we are inclined to set aside the order in relation

to imposition of costs.

Accordingly, the order of the learned single Judge to the extent it

imposes costs of Rs.25,000/- payable by the appellant/writ petitioner is set

aside and the appeal stands dismissed as not pressed in all other respects.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. No

costs.

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J

IBL