Tummala Lakshmana Rao vs Union Of India & Ors
2014 Latest Caselaw 6611 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+          W.P.(C) 8727/2014 & CM No.20062/2014

                                                 Decided on : 09.12.2014
IN THE MATTER OF:
TUMMALA LAKSHMANA RAO                              ..... Petitioner
                  Through : Mr. M.A. Chinasamy, Advocate

                        versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS                             ..... Respondents

Through : Mr. Kirtiman Singh with Mr. Waize Ali Noor, Advocates for UOI.

CORAM HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

HIMA KOHLI, J.(Oral)

1. The present petition has been listed subject to an office objection

with regard to its maintainability.

2. It has been enquired from learned counsel for the petitioner as to

what is the petitioner's personal interest in seeking a writ of quo

warranto so as to restrain the respondents No.2 to 10 from functioning

as Additional Judges of the High Court of the States of Telangana/Andhra

Pradesh.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had retired as

a Principal District Judge from the State of Andhra Pradesh and as a

public spirited citizen, he has questioned the appointment of the

respondents No.2 to 10 as Additional Judges of the High Court Andhra

Pradesh on a number of grounds including the plea that adhoc

appointments are impermissible when permanent vacancies are available

in the said Court.

4. If that be the case, then the petitioner ought to have filed the

present petition as a Public Interest Litigation, after making compliances

of the rules prescribed by the High Court in that regard.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1/Ministry of Law and

Justice, who appears on advance copy, states that even otherwise, the

present petition is not maintainable in this Court for want of territorial

jurisdiction, as a large part of the cause of action has arisen in the

States of Andhra Pradesh/Telangana and additionally, the petitioner has

failed to implead the State Governments as co-respondents.

6. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw

the present petition while reserving the right of the petitioner to seek his

remedies as per law.

7. Leave, as prayed for, is granted. The writ petition is dismissed

along with the pending application. If the petitioner files a fresh petition

for the same cause of action, the respondents/UOI shall be entitled to

take all the pleas in opposition, as may be available to it in law.

                                                      (HIMA KOHLI)
DECEMBER 09, 2014                                        JUDGE
sk/rkb