Telangana High Court
The Bar Association, Sulthanabad And 4 ... vs High Court For The State Of Telangana At ... on 6 November, 2020
Author: B. Vijaysen Reddy
Bench: Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, B.Vijaysen Reddy
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.16834 of 2020
Date: 06.11.2020
BETWEEN
The Bar Association, Sulthanabad
and others.
... PETITIONERS
AND
High Court for the State of Telangana
and others.
...RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the petitioners : Mr. S.V. Ramana
Counsel for the respondents : Mr. Vedula Srinivas
SC for High Court
The Court made the following:
2
ORDER:(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy) The Bar Association of Sulthanabad, represented by its President, instituted this present writ petition seeking the following relief:
"...the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction to stay the order ROC.No.433/2019-DII*B) dated 24.04.2020 of the Hon'ble High Court and pass such other or further orders as the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. The impugned proceedings bearing ROC.No.433/2019-DII(B) dated 24.04.2020 is issued by the High Court for the State of Telangana permitting alienation of land, admeasuring Ac.13.20 guntas situated in Sy.No.425 - an extent of Ac.09.00 guntas of Kannala Village of Palakurthi Mandal and in Sy.No.192 to an extent of Ac.04.20 guntas situated at Raghavapur Village of Peddapalli Mandal, identified in favour of Judicial Department as stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.571 Revenue (Assignment-I) Department dated 14.09.2012 for construction of judicial complex for proposed Peddapalli Judicial District.
3. Heard Mr. S.V. Ramana, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
4. The grievance of the petitioner - bar association is that if proposal for establishment of Court in Sy.No.425 of Kannala Village of Palakurthi Mandal is accepted, the said area would fall within the jurisdiction of both the Courts of Peddapalli as well as Manthani.
For the said reason, the proposed site is not suitable for establishment of judicial complex for Peddapalli Court. Further, the following grounds are urged by the petitioner - bar association to buttress the plea that 3 the aforesaid land in Kannala Village is not suitable for establishing Principal District Court at Peddapalli:
a) The opinion of the stake holders i.e. practising lawyers and convenience of litigant public was not taken into consideration.
b) The proposed site falls in Kannala Revenue Village, which is within the jurisdiction of Senior Civil Judge and Junior Civil Judge at Manthani.
c) IV Additional District Judge cum Labour Court, Godavarikhani, is also having jurisdiction over the Kannala Area.
d) If the proposal for establishment of the Court in Sy.No.425 of Kannala Village of Palakurthi Mandal is accepted, the same area would fall within the jurisdiction of both the Courts of Peddapalli as well as Manthani.
Hence, the proposed site is not suitable for establishment of a Judicial Complex for Peddapalli Court.
e) The area is full of boulders and number of stone crushing units are located within the vicinity of the proposed area. Apart from the existence of the stone crushing units, at an aerial distance of 4 KMs, there is NTPC, Fertilizers Corporation of India, Singareni Opencast Mines, Kesoram Cements and also the Raghavapur Railway Station, which is an exclusive loading point for Food Corporation of India. Because of the existence of the number of industries, stone crushing units etc. there is lot of noise and dust pollution and the location of a judicial complex at the proposed site is not conducive for the health of the advocates, judicial officers and also the litigant public.
f) The proposed site is at a distance of 11 KMs from Peddapalli Town and there are no transport facilities (City buses for Peddapalli Town).
g) The present location of Junior Civil Judges and Senior Civil Judges Courts were constructed in the year 2001 and the said site is located at a distance of 2 KMs from Peddapalli Town.
h) At the time of selection of site, it was held that the judicial officers can stay in the complex itself and none of the 4 judicial officers are staying in the quarters because of its location outside the town and also because of reptiles in the area.
i) The present site is also located at a far of place and the establishment of Court at this particular place causes lot of inconvenience to the advocates, judicial officers and the litigant public.
j) At the time of accepting the proposal for location of the site, the High Court was not appraised with regard to the prevailing circumstances at the particular place and the amount of pollution i.e. noise and air in the particular area and there is no habitation within the vicinity.
k) There is already one old building existing in Junior Civil Judge's Court at Sulthanabad and recently a new building is constructed and at present the JCJ Court is not functioning in new building and the old building is kept vacant.
l) The total extent of land is about 6 acres in JCJ Court premises. Apart from this 6 acres of land there is about 7 acres of land belonging to Irrigation Department is available, which is situated just adjacent to the existing Court premises of Sulthanabad. The SRSP Camp office was functioning in the said 7 acres of land till 2003, thereafter, the said office is disbanded and the entire 7 acres of land and the buildings which are in dilapidated condition are kept vacant. If the 7 acres of land is allotted to the District Court Complex, there will be 13 acres of land for the proposed District Court Complex.
m) Recently the Government has constructed new District Collectorate buildings of Peddapalli District in SRSP camp office land situated in Peddabonkur village. The District Headquarter Complex is situated 7 KMs away from the Sulthanabad Court building. The distance between Peddapalli and Sulthanabad is about 11 KMs. In the recent times several residential, commercial and industries are established in between Peddapalli and Sulthanabad and there is every possibility of merging these two towns shortly. Hence, the proposed Courts of Peddapalli can be constructed even in existing area and 5 the said location would also be convenient for the advocates of Peddapalli and litigant public.
5. From a perusal of the above grounds it can be seen that the petitioner - bar association has pleaded before this Court that for various grounds put forth above, lot of hardship and inconvenience would be faced by the advocates at Sulthanabad Court. The writ petition is misconceived, as the petitioner - bar association does not have locus standi to institute this kind of writ petition so as to canvass the grievance as stated hereinabove. The decision of the High Court to set up Court Complex for the proposed Peddapalli Judicial District at a particular place is a policy decision in concurrence with the executive authorities and the same cannot be subject matter of grievance before this Court in a writ petition. This Court does not find violation of any constitutional or statutory rights. The only grievance of the petitioner seems to be that there will be inconvenience to the advocates and litigant public if the District Court complex is established at the proposed site. The said dispute can never fall within the realm of writ jurisdiction and the petitioner-bar association does not have locus to question the impugned proceedings.
6. The writ petition is totally misconceived and the same is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. It is, hereby, dismissed.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
____________________________ RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, CJ __________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J November 6, 2020 DSK