Ebburi Pandu Ranga, vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2137 AP

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI



 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
                                       &
             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA


                   WRIT PETITION No.11496 of 2021
                      (Taken up through video conferencing)


Ebburi Pandu Ranga S/o. Shri Subrahmanyam,
Aged about 51 years, Occ: Advocate,
High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi,
R/o. D.No.26-39-129/99, Ramireddinagar,
A T Agraharam, Guntur - 522 004.
                                                              .. Petitioner
        Versus

Government of Andhra Pradesh,
Represented by its Chief Secretary,
A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi,
and others.
                                                              .. Respondents

Counsel for the petitioner : Mr Y. Surya Prasad

Counsel for respondent No.1 : Mr. V. Maheswara Reddy, GP for Home Counsel for respondent No.2 : Mr. Venkateswarlu Posani

Counsel for respondent No.3 : Mr. N. Harinath, ASG

ORAL ORDER

Dt: 25.06.2021

(per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)

Heard Mr. Y. Surya Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also

heard Mr. V. Maheswara Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Home

appearing for respondent No.1, Mr. Venkateswarlu Posani, learned

standing counsel for High Court appearing for respondent No.2, and

Mr. N. Harinath, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for respondent

No.3.

HCJ&NJS,J W.P.No.11496 of 2021

2. This petition is filed by a practicing Advocate of this Court, seeking

a writ of Mandamus directing that the Judges and Division Courts of this

Court may also sit in an appropriate building in the premises of Nagarjuna

University or in other suitable accommodation till such time suitable

accommodation, facilities and other logistics are provided at the present

place of functioning of the High Court.

3. It is pleaded that the High Court of Andhra Pradesh was constituted

by the Hon‟ble President of India vide order dated 26.12.2018 under

Article 214 of the Constitution of India, taking into account the order

passed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India and in exercise of powers

conferred under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 30, sub-section

(1) of Section 31 and sub-section (2) of Section 31 of the Andhra Pradesh

Reorganization Act, 2014, from the 1st day of January, 2019, with the

principal seat of such High Court at Amaravati in the State of Andhra

Pradesh. It is further pleaded that the High Court is functioning smoothly

with the consecrated and dedicated services of the Hon‟ble Judges

assisted by the Bar since its constitution.

4. It is further pleaded that the Government of Andhra Pradesh

brought the Andhra Pradesh Decentralisation and Inclusive Development

of All Regions Act, 2020 (for short, „the Act of 2020‟). Section 8 of the said

Act provides that the State Government shall endeavour to locate all the

Institutions of the State, State Department(s) and instrumentalities of the

State in the three capitals and without prejudice to the generality of the

foregoing, the State shall, as far as practicable, seek to ensure that the

seat of Legislature shall be at the Legislative Capital of Amaravati, the Raj

Bhawan, Secretariat and Offices of the Heads of the Departments of

Government shall be located at the Executive Capital of Visakhapatnam

HCJ&NJS,J W.P.No.11496 of 2021

and the seat of all State Judicial Institutions established under State

legislations shall, as far as practicable, be located in the Judicial Capital of

Kurnool.

5. Earlier, the petitioner had filed a writ petition numbered as

W.P.No.1388 of 2020, challenging the constitutional validity of the Act of

2020. The said writ petition along with other writ petitions is pending

consideration before the Full Bench.

6. The petitioner states that certain facilities and amenities are lacking

in respect of the present building, such as, lack of residential

accommodation nearby, lack of facilities for vehicle repairing, long

distance of 25 kms. for accessing medical facilities, insufficient canteen

facilities etc.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on paragraph 37 of a

decision of the Karnataka High Court in Advocates' Association v. The

Chief Minister, Government of Karnataka, reported in AIR 1997

Kant 18, wherein it was observed as follows:

"37. However, the learned Addl. Government Advocate

submitted that it is not permissible for this Court to give a

direction to the State to implement the project in question in

exercise of the power conferred on this Court under Art.226 of

the Constitution, as it amounts to directing the Legislature to

approve the Budget. I am unable to accept this submission

because sub-clause 3(e) of Art.202 of the Constitution of India

provides that any sums required to satisfy any judgment,

decree or award of any Court or Arbitral Tribunal would be

treated as an expenditure charging under consolidated fund of

each State. Further, I have also found that the action of the

HCJ&NJS,J W.P.No.11496 of 2021

State in not implementing the project is highly arbitrary, unfair

and unreasonable. Therefore, when the action of the State is

either arbitrary, unreasonable or unfair, it is not only

permissible for this Court to quash the action of the State but

it is also permissible for this Court to give positive direction to

the State to discharge its duties, which it is under an

obligation to do."

8. In the writ petition filed before the Karnataka High Court, the

Advocates Association, Bangalore, had sought for a direction to the

respondents therein to demolish the existing old building of the

Association and to construct in its place a new building at the premises of

the City Civil Court Complex, Bangalore.

9. In our considered view, the said judgment has no relevance in the

facts of the present case.

10. There is no averment as to why the petitioner has chosen

Nagarjuna University to be the premises where the High Court, according

to him, should function.

11. The prayer made only on the ground of alleged shortcomings and

deficiencies, as contended by the petitioner, is misconceived.

12. Accordingly, this writ petition is not entertained and is disposed of.

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

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ                            NINALA JAYASURYA, J
                                                                              IBL

                                                         HCJ&NJS,J
                                               W.P.No.11496 of 2021

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE &

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

WRIT PETITION No.11496 of 2021

(per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)

Dt: 25.06.2021

IBL