SYNOPSIS That the petitioner is approaching this Hon ble Court seeking a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, and thereby defer the implementation of Notification published in Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part-II, Section 3, Subsection (ii) dated 26.12.2018 issued by Respondent no. 1 till completion of permanent High Court premises as the impugned Notification is in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Constitution of India, particularly Article 14, 19 & 21 of the Constitution of India for all concerned including the Litigants, for which the Courts are meant for and their rights to seek justice are being violated severely. The Petitioners are approaching this Hon ble Court before vacation Court for the reason that the impugned Notification was issued on 26 th December, 2018 and thereby High Court of Andhra Pradesh has to start from 01.01.2019 at new premises which is not a permanent seat of Court rather same is make shift arrangement. In case, this petition would not be heard before January 1 st, 2019, it shall become infractous at the time of re-opening of the Supreme Court from January 2 nd, 2019. Thus, there is urgency to file this matter. Hence, this Writ Petition. LIST OF DATES & EVENTS 1961 That the Petitioner no. 1 is Bar Association at High Court having more than 2000 regular members and this Association is taking many steps for welfare of the lawyers and playing a vital role for the system in its integrated way for Bar & Bench since the year 1961. 2014. The State of Andhra Pradesh was bifurcated by virtue of The Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 with effect from 02.06 2014. Since the implementation of the Act, the existing High Court premises is being used as High Court for two states, namely Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. By all practical reasons relating to filing of cases, registry operations, Chamber Block for
lawyers, Dispensary, excellent connectivity by surface transport, enough parking space etc, and the Courts are entertaining the petitions for both the states as per roster of the Hon ble Judges and the functioning is smooth and also, even the serial numbers of the cases are in continuity. 29.10. 2018 This Hon ble Court passed the orders in Appeal being Union of India Vs T. Dhangopal in SLP (Civil) No. D. 29890/2018 to constitute a separate High court for the State of A.P in Hyderabad till alternate infrastructure is developed in the territories of A.P. The Government of A.P. in response to the notice issued in the said SLP filed an affidavit undertaking to hand over the completed buildings by 15.12.2018 and basing on the said undertaking the Hon ble Supreme court disposed of the SLP by judgment vide order dated 29.10. 2018. A copy of the order dated 29.10.2018 passed by this Hon ble Court in re Union of India Vs T. Dhangopal in SLP (Civil) No. D. 29890/2018 is annexed as Annexure P/ 1. [Page ] 26.12.2018 The Respondent no. 1 issued the Notification in Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part-II, Section 3, Subsection (ii) dated 26.12.2018 and thereby directed to function Andhra Pradesh High Court at new Premises, despite the fact that the new premises is not ready and same has been proposed at camp Office. A copy of the Notification dated 26.12.2018 is annexed as Annexure P/ 2. [Page ] 28.12.2018 The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued a memo whereby the new High Court is proposed to state at Chief Minister s Camp Office. It is to state that the Construction of the new building is incomplete and it may take around 10 more months to complete the same. Now the proposed High Court has been planned to start at a make-shift premises Camp Office of Chief
Minister which is basically a residential apartment where there is thoroughfare of the many political persons and the environment itself is not conducive for the Judicial function, that too, of the Constitutional Court. A copy of the memo no. GAD/01/423/SC/F/ 2018 dated 28.12.2018 is annexed herewith as Annexure P/3[Page ] 29.12.2018 The Petitioners made a joint represent to the President of India through email on 29 th December, 2018 and presented their plight regarding the inaccurate exercise to start the High Court which is not conducive from any angle and it shall defeat the very right of the litigation to access for justice. The Petitioner Association has also taken the current photographs of the incomplete building. A copy of the representation dated 23/29.12.2018 made by the Petitioner Association is annexed as Annexure P/ 4[Page ] 29.12.2018 Hence the present WRIT PETITION is being filed.
A WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SEEKING ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MAMDAMUS AND THEREBY ISSUE DIRECTION TO DEFER THE IMPLEMENTATION OF NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED IN GAZETTE OF INDIA, EXTRAORDINARY, PART-II, SECTION 3, SUBSECTION (II) DATED 26.12.2018 BY RESPONDENT NO. 1. TO, THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE PETITIONER ABOVE-NAMED MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH : 1. That the petitioner above-named respectfully submits the present petition seeking a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, and thereby defer the implementation of Notification published in Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part-II, Section 3, Subsection (ii) dated 26.12.2018 issued by Respondent no. 1 till completion of permanent High Court premises. The Petitioners are invoking the Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking aforesaid relief(s) being in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Constitution of India, particularly Article 14, 19 & 21 of the Constitution of India for all concerned including the Litigants, for which the Courts are meant for and their rights to seek justice are being violated severely. The Petitioners are approaching this Hon ble Court before vacation Court for the reason that the impugned Notification was issued on 26 th December, 2018 and thereby High Court of Andhra Pradesh has to start from 01.01.2019 at new premises which is not a permanent seat of Court rather same is make shift arrangement. In case, this petition would not be heard before January 1 st, 2019, it shall become infractous at the time of re-opening of the Supreme Court from January 2 nd, 2019. Thus, there is urgency to file this matter. 2. That the Petitioner no. 1 is Bar Association at High Court having more than 2000 regular members and this Association is taking many steps for welfare of the lawyers and playing a vital role for the system in its integrated way for Bar & Bench since the year 1961. The Petitioner no. 2 is the Vice President of the Association
and the Petitioner no. 3 is a regular member of the Petitioner no. 1. 3. The AP Advocate Association, Hyderabad submit that the State of A.P. was bifurcated under Article 3 of the Constitution of India. Under Article 4, a provision was made enabling the Govt of A.P.to function from Hyderabad under Section 5 of the A.P. State Reorganisation Act, 2014 for a period of 10 years. The Parliament in their wisdom declared the High court at Hyderabad as common facility for both the States till a new High Court is established for the State of A.P. under Section 6 of the said Act. Further under Section 94 of the same Act a provision was made to extend financial support to the successor State of A.P. to develop facilities like Raj Bhavan, Legislative Assembly and High Court. Accordingly the Government of A.P. started functioning from Hyderabad from the appointed date i.e., 02.06.2014 peacefully. 1. Since State of Andhra Pradesh was bifurcated by virtue of The Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 with effect from 02.06 2014. Since the implementation of the Act, the existing High Court premises is being used as High Court for two states, namely Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. By all practical reasons relating to filing of cases, registry operations, Chamber Block for lawyers, Dispensary, excellent connectivity by surface transport, enough parking space etc, and the Courts are entertaining the petitions for both the states as per roster of the Hon ble Judges and the functioning is smooth and also, even the serial numbers of the cases are in continuity. 2. In the year 2015 the Government of A.P. rep by its cabinet decided to shift the capital to CRDA notified area ( Amaravathi, Vijayawada and Guntur ) immediately without creating the necessary infrastructure. The offices were shifted into the leased premises at Vijayawada and Guntur in 2016 and 2017 at the cost of public exchequer and officers are working only for 5 days a week to facilitate its staff shuttle between Hyderabad-Vijayawada. The officers are leaving their offices to join their families put up at Hyderabad, in the afternoon of Friday and reaching temporary Capital at Amaravathi by the afternoon of the succeeding Monday.
Thus the offices in the A.P. Capital are working for four days a week at the cost of the public inconvenience. 3. As stated supra the interest and governance of A.P. was jeopardized due to shifting of its Government Offices into leased buildings at Vijayawada and Guntur despite the protection to stay in the common capital for 10 years under the provisions of the 2014 Act pending development of facilities and infrastructure in the State of AP. The establishment of the High Court is the Union of India Project. Section 94 of the Act envisages fiscal support for the development of facilities like establishment of High Court of Judicature for the State of A.P. In the Writ Petition (PIL) No. 59 of 2015 filed in the high court of Judicature at Hyderabad by one individual in public interest to bifurcate the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh the government of Telangana came forward to provide accommodation to house the high court for the State of A.P. in a separate building or move the High court of Telangana into separate buildings. The Hon ble High Court rejected the plea in view of the provision in the 2014 Act. 4. The Union of India also moved the Hon ble Supreme court vide SLP (Civil) No. D.29890/2018 to constitute a separate High court for the State of A.P in Hyderabad till alternate infrastructure is developed in the territories of A.P. The Government of A.P. in response to the notice issued in the said SLP filed an affidavit undertaking to hand over the completed buildings by 15.12.2018 and basing on the said undertaking the Hon ble Supreme court disposed of the SLP by judgement dt. 29.10. 2018. Infact the government of A.P. started constructing a building for City Civil Court for the Capital and showed the said building as an alternate structure till the new buildings for housing the High Court are constructed. That alternate building is incomplete and no facilities are provided apart from being insufficient to house the High Court. The pictures of the proposed high court buildings taken after 15 th December 2018 clearly depicts that the undertaking given before the Hon ble Supreme Court by way of affidavit is not fulfilled. During rainy season the vicinity around the proposed building was full of water. The employees working in the nearby Secretariat
moved by walk as the available road sunk due to lose nature of the soil. No drains were developed to let out the storm water collected around the proposed building. The buildings constructed in haste to urgently accommodate the Secretariat and Legislative Assembly are leaking during rainy season and all those videos have become viral. The Enquiry Committee, constituted by the Government to find out the reasons for leakage has not submitted its report. 5. The ongoing civil works for the proposed buildings are also running at the same pace and haste. There are no habitations except small village panchayats to accommodate the members of the Bar, Staff and personnel associated with the profession within 20 Kilometers radius. There are no bungalows to accommodate the Hon ble Judges near or around the proposed site. In view of CRDA regulations there is no possibility of developing the infrastructure to accommodate the members of the bar and personnel associated with the system in a radius of 15 to 20 Kilo meters around the proposed city Civil Court/high court buildings. Roads leading to the proposed building are not laid and due to the lose nature of soil the new roads will take at least one rainy season after their laying, to set. There is absolutely no safety to the women members of the bar to reach to and from the proposed City Civil court/high court building. The learned lady advocates also met the Hon ble Chief Justice of the High Court of Judicaturte at Hyderabad on 20.12.2018 to explain their specific problems if the high court is shifted into the proposed building. 6. As already stated the government employees are still shuttling from Hyderabad at the cost of governance. Four employees of the Secretariat/head offices working in the Capital who came to join their families at Hyderabad succumbed to road accident while going to Hyderabad. Till the infrastructure is developed around the proposed building the lawyers and other personnel also cannot move their families from Hyderabad. If the High court is shifted into the temporary buildings, the members of the bar and personnel associated with the system will suffer irreparably. 7. The shifting of high court in to an ad-interim complex will further jeopardize the financial interest of the State and prove the fiscal
assurances made under Section 94 of the 2014 Act futile. Bifurcation of the high court urgently to create a separate one for the State of Andhra Pradesh is not in any body s interest including the State of A.P. and litigant public. The Bar Association of A.P. High Court also passed an unanimous resolution on 5.12.2018 not to shift into the temporary buildings and shift only after comprehensive infrastructure is developed by the government as contemplated under the 2014 Act. 8. In view of the misleading affidavit filed on behalf of the State of A.P. before the Hon ble Supreme Court undertaking to furnish the construction of alternate structure to house the High court and hand it over to the Hon ble Chief Justice before 15.12.2018 and the disposal of the SLP (Civil) No. D. 29890/2018 observing to issue the notification for constituting the high court for the State A.P.by bifurcating the existing facility by 1 st January 2019, it became necessary to approach this Hon ble Court to review the situation and continue the present facility of high court in the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh until a High Court Building with all the necessary infrastructure and facilities are provided in territories of Andhra Pradesh or separate the high courts so as to enable them to function separately either same buildings or separate buildings, as observed in para 5 of the Judgement dated 29.10.2018. 9. This Hon ble Court granted an Appeal in petition titled UoI Vs. T, Dhangopal and others being Special Leave Petition [C] No. D. 29890 of 2018 relating the shifting of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh to Amaravati, a new City under planned construction. It was stated by the State of Andhra Pradesh that the construction of New High Court would be completed by 15 December, 2018 and having such assurance by the State of Andhra Pradesh, this Hon ble Court permitted the Respondent no.1 to issue suitable Notification for bifurcation of the High Court. A copy of the order dated 29.10.2018 passed by this Hon ble Court in re Union of India Vs T. Dhangopal in SLP (Civil) No. D.29890/2018 is annexed as Annexure P/ 1. [Page ] 10. The Petitioners submits that the High Court can function well at
the present place and there ought not to have any objection from the State of Telangana, in view of the statement made at the bar before this Hon ble Court, as under: 5. Notices were issued to both the States of Telangana as well as Andhra 9 Pradesh and respondents. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel appearing for State of Telangana took the position on an earlier date that State of Telangana was ready to provide a separate building in the city of Hyderabad itself where the High Court of Andhra Pradesh can be temporarily shifted till the time State constructs its own building in Amarawathi. A copy of the order dated 29.10.2018 passed in UoI Vs. T, Dhangopal and others being Special Leave Petition [C] No. D. 29890 of 2018 is annexed herewith as Annexure P/2 11. The Respondent no. 1 issued the Notification in Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part-II, Section 3, Subsection (ii) dated 26.12.2018 and thereby directed to function Andhra Pradesh High Court at new Premises, despite the fact that the new premises is not ready and same has been proposed at camp Office. A copy of the Notification dated 26.12.2018 is annexed as Annexure P/3 12. The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued a memo whereby the new High Court is proposed to state at Chief Minister s Camp Office. It is to state that the Construction of the new building is incomplete and it may take around 10 more months to complete the same. Now the proposed High Court has been planned to start at a make-shift premises Camp Office of Chief Minister which is basically a residential apartment where there is thoroughfare of the many political persons and the environment itself is not conducive for the Judicial function, that too, of the Constitutional Court. A copy of the memo no. GAD/01/423/SC/F/2018 dated 28.12.2018 is annexed herewith as Annexure P/4. 13. The Petitioners made a joint represent to the President of India through email on 29 th December, 2018 and presented their plight regarding the inaccurate exercise to start the High Court which is not conducive from any angle and it shall defeat the very right of
the litigation to access for justice. The Petitioner Association has also taken the current photographs of the incomplete building. A copy of the representation dated 23/29.12.2018 made by the Petitioner Association is annexed as Annexure P/ 14. That the petitioners crave for the indulgence of this Hon'ble Court to grant of Writ and interim order, inter-alia, on following amongst other grounds : A. Because the High Court bulding is incomplete in all respects and it may take more than 10 months to made the same operational. B. Because the Court officers & Staff are leaving Amravati their offices to join their families put up at Hyderabad, in the afternoon of Friday and reaching temporary Capital at Amaravathi by the afternoon of the succeeding Monday. Thus the offices in the A.P. Capital are working for four days a week at the cost of the public inconvenience. C. Because the undertaking furnished by Government of A.P. in response to the notice issued in the said Special Leave Petition, to hand over the completed buildings by 15.12.2018 remains unfulfilled and the new building is incomplete. D. Because the alternate building is incomplete and no facilities are provided for the litigants apart from being insufficient to house the High Court officers, working place for lawyers etc. E. Because the ongoing civil works for the proposed buildings are also running at the same pace and haste and there are no habitations except small village panchayats to accommodate the members of the Bar, Staff and personnel associated with the profession within 20 Kilometers radius. F. Because as per CRDA regulations there is no possibility of developing the infrastructure to accommodate the members of the bar and personnel associated with the system in a radius of 15 to 20 Kilo meters around the proposed city Civil Court/high court buildings. Also, Roads leading to the proposed building are not laid and due to the lose nature of soil the new roads will take at least one rainy season after their laying, to set. G. Because there is absolutely no safety to the litigants
particularly women and also the women members of the bar to reach to and from the proposed City Civil court/high court building. The learned lady advocates also met the Hon ble Chief Justice of the High Court of Judicaturte at Hyderabad on 20.12.2018 to explain their specific problems if the high court is shifted into the proposed building. H. Because shifting of high court in to an ad-interim complex will further jeopardize the financial interest of the State and prove the fiscal assurances made under Section 94 of the 2014 Act futile. Bifurcation of the high court urgently to create a separate one for the State of Andhra Pradesh is not in any body s interest including the State of A.P. and litigant public. I. Because the Contraction of the new building is incomplete and it may take around 10 more months to complete the same. Now the proposed High Court has been planned to start at a make-shift premises Camp Office of Chief Minister which is basically a residential apartment where there is thoroughfare of the many political persons and the environment itself is not conducive for the Judicial function, that too, of the Constitutional Court. 18. That the petitioner states that no other or similar petition seeking writ has been filed by him against the similar cause of action before Hon ble Supreme Court and Hon ble High Court. 19. That the Annexures P/1 to P/ 4 produced alongwith the present WRIT PETITION are true copies of their respective originals. PRAYER : In the premises set forth above, it is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to : (i) issue a writ in the nature of Mamdamus or any other appropriate writ and thereby issue direction(s) to defer the implementation of Notification published in Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part-II, Section 3, Subsection (ii) dated 26.12.2018 issued by Respondent no. 1; till completion of permanent High Court premises and;
(ii) PASS such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case; AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER SHALL EVER PRAY AS DUTY-BOUND Drawn and Filed by : Advocate (MR.PRAVEEN CHATURVEDI) Advocate for Petitioner DATE OF DRAFTING : 29/12/2018 PLACE : New Delhi FILED ON : 29.12.2018
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH : 1. That the above matter is beiomng filed while impugning the Notification published in Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part-II, Section 3, Subsection (ii) dated 26.12.2018 issued by Respondent no. 1; till completion of permanent High Court premises for the reasons and grounds taken in the accompanying Writ Petition 2. The facts and grounds are not repeated for sake of brevity and it is prayed that same may be read as part of this application as well. 3. The developing infrastructure is unable to accommodate the members of the bar and personnel associated with the system in a radius of 15 to 20 Kilo meters around the proposed city Civil Court/ high court buildings. Also, Roads leading to the proposed building are not laid and due to the lose nature of soil the new roads will take at least one rainy season after their laying, to set. 4. There is absolutely no safety to the litigants particularly women and also the women members of the bar to reach to and from the proposed City Civil court/high court building. The learned lady advocates also met the Hon ble Chief Justice of the High Court of Judicaturte at Hyderabad on 20.12.2018 to explain their specific problems if the high court is shifted into the proposed building. 5. The shifting of high court in to an ad-interim complex will further jeopardize the financial interest of the State and prove the fiscal assurances made under Section 94 of the 2014 Act futile. Bifurcation of the high court urgently to create a separate one for the State of Andhra Pradesh is not in any body s interest including the State of A.P. and litigant public. 6. Hence, the implementation of the impugned Notification deserves to be stayed till further orders. P R A Y E R In the premises set forth above, it is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be
pleased to : (i) Stay the Notification published in Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part-II, Section 3, Subsection (ii) dated 26.12.2018 issued by Respondent no. 1; and (ii) PASS such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case; AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER SHALL EVER PRAY AS DUTY-BOUND Drawn and Filed by : DATE OF DRAFTING : /12/2018 PLACE : New Delhi FILED ON : 29.12.2018 (MR.PRAVEEN CHATURVEDI) Advocate for Petitioner