Telangana High Court
Ap High Court Advocates Association vs Union Of India, on 12 February, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIR 2019 TELANGANA 1, (2019) 2 ANDHLD 151, 2019 (2) KLT SN 48 (TEL), 2019 (3) KLT SN 20 (TEL)
Author: Sanjay Kumar
Bench: Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Sanjay Kumar, A.Rajasheker Reddy
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA:
AT HYDERABAD
****
TAKEN UP W.P.(PIL) NO.5 OF 2019;
W.A.NOs.790, 974, 1069, 1141,
1399, 1503, 1656, 1686, 1717, 1718,
1721 OF 2018; W.A.NO.42 OF 2019;
AND
W.A.NOs.453 AND 675 OF 2008;
W.A.NOs.153 AND 154 OF 2015;
AND W.A.NO.1349 OF 2018
TAKEN UP W.P.(PIL) NO.5 OF 2019:
Letter dated 6.1.2019 sent by the Andhra Pradesh
High Court Advocates' Association represented by
its President, High Court Buildings, Amaravathi,
Guntur District ... Petitioner
Vs.
Union of India, represented by its Secretary,
Ministry of Law and Justice Central
Secretariat, New Delhi and others ... Respondents
Date of Judgment Pronouncement: 12th FEBRUARY, 2019
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
SRI THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No
may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. Whether copies of the judgment may be Yes/No
marked to Law Reporters/Journals
3. Whether His Lordship wishes to Yes/No
see the fair copy of the judgment?
______________________________
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, CJ
_______________
SANJAY KUMAR, J
____________________
A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J
2
* THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
SRI THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
+TAKEN UP W.P.(PIL) NO.5 OF 2019;
W.A.NOs.790, 974, 1069, 1141,
1399, 1503, 1656, 1686, 1717, 1718,
1721 OF 2018; W.A.NO.42 OF 2019;
AND
W.A.NOs.453 AND 675 OF 2008;
W.A.NOs.153 AND 154 OF 2015;
AND W.A.NO.1349 OF 2018
% DATED 12th FEBRUARY, 2019
TAKEN UP W.P.(PIL) NO.5 OF 2019:
# Letter dated 6.1.2019 sent by the Andhra Pradesh
High Court Advocates' Association represented by
its President, High Court Buildings, Amaravathi,
Guntur District ... Petitioner
Vs.
$ Union of India, represented by its Secretary,
Ministry of Law and Justice Central
Secretariat, New Delhi and others ... Respondents
<Gist:
>Head Note:
! Counsel for petitioner(s) in
W.A.No.675/2008 : Sri D.V.Sitharam Murthy
! Counsel for petitioner(s) in W.A.
Nos.790, 1349 and 1718/2018 : Special Government Pleader representing
Advocate General for the State of Andhra
Pradesh
^Counsel for respondent(s) in
W.A.Nos.453/2008, 153/2015
and 154/2015 : Sri D.V.Sitharam Murthy
^Counsel for respondent(s) in
W.A.No.1141/2018 : Sri M.S.Prasaad
^Counsel for respondent(s) in
Taken Up W.P.(PIL)
No.5 of 2019 : Advocate General for the State of
Telangana
? CASES REFERRED:
1. (2008) 6 SCC 726
2. 2000 SCC OnLine All 1007 : (2001) 42 ALR 191
3. 2015(2) ALD 554 (D.B.) : 2015(1) ALT 418 (D.B.)
3
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
SRI THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
TAKEN UP W.P.(PIL) NO.5 OF 2019;
W.A.NOs.790, 974, 1069, 1141,
1399, 1503, 1656, 1686, 1717, 1718,
1721 OF 2018; W.A.NO.42 OF 2019;
AND
W.A.NOs.453 AND 675 OF 2008;
W.A.NOs.153 AND 154 OF 2015;
AND W.A.NO.1349 OF 2018
COMMON JUDGMENT
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar) On 28.01.2019, a Division Bench of this Court comprising two of us (Hon'ble The Chief Justice and ARR,J) passed the following order:
'Learned Advocate General for the State of Andhra Pradesh requested that the Chief Justice may consider exercising discretion under Section 40(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014.
2. We are of the considered view that it would be appropriate that these matters are considered by a Full Bench having regard to the importance of the issues involved.
3. We also notice that a Division Bench of this Court in T.Madan Mohan Reddy and B.R. Meena (2015(2) ALD 554 (DB)) had considered certain attendant issues. We have also seen the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of Uttaranchal v. Sehnaz Mirza ((2008) 6 SCC 726) dealing with the situation that arose in Uttarakhand. Learned Advocate General for the State of Andhra Pradesh also points out the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Peoples Union for Civil Liberties, Allahabad v. State of U.P (2000 SCC Online All 1007 : (2001) 42 ALR 191).
4. Post these matters before the Full Bench.
Office is directed to place these matters before the Chief Justice for taking appropriate orders in this regard.' The above reference order was passed in Taken up W.P.(PIL) No.5 of 2019, W.A.Nos.790, 974, 1069, 1141, 1399, 1503, 1686, 1717, 1718, 1721 of 2018 and W.A.No.42 of 2019. Though no such order was passed in W.A.Nos.453 and 675 of 2008 & W.A.Nos.153 and 154 of 2015, all arising 4 out of the same order, they were directed to be heard together and posted along with W.A.No.790 of 2018, in which a reference order was passed. Similarly, no reference order was passed in W.A.Nos.1349 and 1656 of 2018, but both these cases were also directed to be posted along with W.A.No.790 of 2018.
That is how all these matters were placed before this Full Bench. History stands witness to the fact that the erstwhile combined State of Andhra Pradesh was bifurcated under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 (for brevity, 'the Act of 2014'), with effect from 02.06.2014. On the said day, the State of Telangana and the present State of Andhra Pradesh came into existence. However, in terms of Section 30 of the Act of 2014, the existing High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad was to be the common High Court for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh till a separate High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh was constituted under Article 214 of the Constitution of India read with Section 31 of the Act of 2014. This event came to pass when the President of India issued Notification dated 26.12.2018, in exercise of the powers conferred by Article 214 of the Constitution and Section 30(1)(a) and Section 31(1) & (2) of the Act of 2014, constituting a separate High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh from 01.01.2019 with its principal seat at Amaravathi in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The Hyderabad High Court thereupon became the High Court for the State of Telangana.
While so, the President of the Andhra Pradesh High Court Advocates Association addressed letter dated 06.01.2019 to the Hon'ble The Chief Justice, High Court of Telangana, to instruct the Registry to identify all the cases where the subject matter of the lis is situated in the State of Andhra Pradesh or where the parties thereto are residents of Andhra Pradesh and to 5 pass appropriate orders for transfer of all such cases to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi, by exercising power under the proviso to Section 40(3) of the Act of 2014, in the interest of justice and for the convenience of the Advocates as well as the public in general.
Taken up W.P.(PIL) No.5 of 2019 was registered suo motu on the strength of this letter of the President of the Andhra Pradesh High Court Advocates Association.
In the light of the above developments, the issue for consideration before this Full Bench is as to the fate of these writ appeals and cases of like nature, which either arise out of or pertain to orders passed by the erstwhile common High Court at Hyderabad for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh but relate wholly and only to the people of the present State of Andhra Pradesh and/or the properties situated in the said State.
Heard the learned Advocate General for the State of Telangana; the learned Special Government Pleader representing the learned Advocate General for the State of Andhra Pradesh; Sri D.V.Sitharam Murthy and Sri M.S.Prasaad, learned senior counsel appearing for some of the parties in these cases; and Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned standing counsel for the High Court of Telangana.
The issue squarely turns upon Section 40 of the Act of 2014. This statutory provision reads as under:
'40. Transfer of proceedings from Hyderabad High Court to Andhra Pradesh High Court. Right to appear or to act in proceedings transferred to Andhra Pradesh High Court:
(1) Except as hereinafter provided, the High Court at Hyderabad shall, as from the date referred to in sub-section (1) of section 30, have no jurisdiction in respect of the State of Andhra Pradesh.
(2) Such proceedings pending in the High Court at Hyderabad immediately before the date referred to in sub-section (1) of section 30 as are certified, whether before or after that day, by the Chief 6 Justice of that High Court, having regard to the place of accrual of the cause of action and other circumstances, to be proceedings which ought to be heard and decided by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh shall, as soon as may be after such certification, be transferred to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1) and (2) of this section or in section 33, but save as hereinafter provided, the High Court at Hyderabad shall have, and the High Court of Andhra Pradesh shall not have, jurisdiction to entertain, hear or dispose of appeals, applications for leave to the Supreme Court, applications for review and other proceedings where any such proceedings seek any relief in respect of any order passed by the High Court at Hyderabad before the date referred to in sub-section (1) of section 30:
Provided that if after any such proceedings have been entertained by the High Court at Hyderabad, it appears to the Chief Justice of that High Court that they ought to be transferred to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, he shall order that they shall be so transferred, and such proceedings shall thereupon be transferred accordingly.
(4) Any order made by the High Court at Hyderabad:
(a) before the date referred to in sub-section (1) of section 30, in any proceedings transferred to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh by virtue of sub-section (2), or
(b) in any proceedings with respect to which the High Court at Hyderabad retains jurisdiction by virtue of sub-section (3), shall for all purposes have effect, not only as an order of the High Court at Hyderabad, but also as an order made by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.' Sub-section (1) of Section 40 makes it clear that except as provided thereafter in the Act of 2014, the Hyderabad High Court is to have no jurisdiction in respect of the present State of Andhra Pradesh once a separate High Court is constituted for the said State under Article 214 of the Constitution. Sub-section (2) of Section 40 provides for the Chief Justice of the Hyderabad High Court certifying the cases pending before the Hyderabad High Court which ought to be heard and decided by the newly constituted High Court of Andhra Pradesh and upon such certification by the Chief Justice of the Hyderabad High Court, all such cases are to be transferred to 7 the newly constituted High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Sub-section (3) of Section 40 begins with a non obstante clause and states that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 40 or anything contained in Section 33, which deals with the territorial jurisdiction of the newly constituted High Court of Andhra Pradesh, but save as provided in the said sub-section itself, the Hyderabad High Court would continue to have jurisdiction, to the exclusion of the newly constituted High Court of Andhra Pradesh, to entertain, hear or dispose of appeals, applications for leave to the Supreme Court, applications for review and other proceedings where any such proceedings seek relief in respect of any order passed by the common High Court at Hyderabad before the constitution of a separate High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh. The proviso to Section 40(3) however states that if any such proceedings were entertained by the Hyderabad High Court but it appears to the Chief Justice of the Hyderabad High Court that they ought to be transferred to the newly constituted High Court of Andhra Pradesh, he can order that they shall be so transferred and such proceedings shall thereupon be transferred accordingly.
Sub-section (4) of Section 40 has no bearing on the issue on hand.
It is relevant to note that Section 40 of the Act of 2014 is in pari materia with Section 35 of the Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000 (for brevity, 'the Act of 2000'). Significantly, Section 40(3) of the Act of 2014 is almost identical to Section 35(3) of the Act of 2000. Section 35(3) of the Act of 2000 fell for consideration before the Supreme Court in STATE OF UTTARANCHAL THROUGH SECRETARY V/s. SEHNAZ MIRZA AND OTHERS1. The respondents in the said case filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court seeking regularisation of their services in the Nagar 1 (2008) 6 SCC 726 8 Palika Balika Intermediate College situated in Nainital District. The said writ petition was allowed in part by order dated 29.05.1997. Contempt proceedings were initiated alleging disobedience to the said order. However, upon promulgation of the Act of 2000, the new State of Uttaranchal (now known as the State of Uttarakhand) came into being with effect from 09.11.2000. By order dated 29.10.2003, a learned Judge of the Allahabad High Court opined that the proper remedy for the respondents would be to approach the Uttaranchal High Court as Nainital District fell within the territories of the new State of Uttaranchal. As per the leave granted, the respondents did so but the State of Uttaranchal filed an appeal before the Supreme Court on the premise that the Uttaranchal High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the contempt case, in view of Section 35 of the Act of 2000. Thereupon, the Supreme Court observed that the provisions of Section 35 of the Act of 2000 were clear, explicit and to the effect that from the appointed day, viz., 09.11.2000, the Allahabad High Court ceased to have any jurisdiction, but Section 35(3) of the Act of 2000 carved out an exception thereto. The Supreme Court further observed that filing of a second contempt case before the Uttaranchal High Court pursuant to the leave granted by the Allahabad High Court was technically incorrect as such leave could not have been granted because it was for the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court to transfer the records to the Uttaranchal High Court but the learned Judge of the Allahabad High Court could have continued to hear the matter. As the order of the learned Judge of the Allahabad High Court directing the respondents to approach the Uttaranchal High Court was not in conformity with Section 35(3) of the Act of 2000, the Supreme Court observed that the Uttaranchal High Court could not have entertained the second contempt case. It was in these circumstances that the Supreme 9 Court chose to exercise jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution and revive the contempt proceedings before the Allahabad High Court. Discretion was however given to the Allahabad High Court to either continue to proceed in the matter or to the Chief Justice of the said High Court to transfer the proceedings to the Uttaranchal High Court.
Similar is the import of the Division Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court in PEOPLES UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES, ALLAHABAD V/s. STATE OF U.P.2. This was a case involving a writ petition filed by the Peoples Union for Civil Liberties with regard to an incident which occurred at Dehradun on 18.05.2000. This writ petition was filed on 24.10.2000 and came up for admission before the Court on 13.11.2000. The Division Bench took note of the fact that the Act of 2000 created the new States of Uttar Pradesh and Uttaranchal with effect from 09.11.2000 and considered the preliminary issue as to whether the Allahabad High Court would have jurisdiction in relation to the subject matter of the writ petition, an incident at Dehradun which was in the newly formed State of Uttaranchal. The Division Bench opined that the moment a case was filed, the Court would be in a position to take cognizance of it or to deal with it or make an order and therefore, the writ petition which was filed on 24.10.2000 was 'pending' as on 09.11.2000, within the meaning of Section 35(2) of the Act of 2000. The Division Bench noted that sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 35 were exceptions to sub-section (1) thereof and provided that the Allahabad High Court would continue to have jurisdiction over such proceedings which were pending before 09.11.2000. However, in such category of cases, if the Chief Justice certifies that such proceedings ought to be heard and decided by the Uttaranchal High Court, they should be transferred to the said Court under 2 2000 SCC OnLine All 1007 : (2001) 42 ALR 191 10 Section 35(2) of the Act of 2000. The Division Bench also considered the issue as to whether Section 35(2) would require certification by the Chief Justice on the judicial side or whether it would be an administrative act. The Bench noted that the power to grant such certificate was conferred upon the Chief Justice alone and not upon the High Court and therefore, such power, having been specifically conferred upon the Chief Justice, would be only administrative in nature. The Division Bench also noted that there were more than 30,000 pending cases which came within the purview of Section 35(2) of the Act of 2000 and observed that it would be almost an impossible job for the Chief Justice to pass a judicial order in each such case.
T.MADAN MOHAN REDDY V/s. B.R.MEENA3 is a decision rendered in a contempt case by a Division Bench of the erstwhile common High Court at Hyderabad, comprising the then Hon'ble The Chief Justice and one of us (SK,J). The peculiar circumstances under which the said decision was rendered have no bearing on the issue presently under consideration. However, in the context of the controversy that arose for consideration in the said case, the Division Bench also considered the provisions of Section 40 of the Act of 2014. The Division Bench observed that the moment a separate High Court was created for the State of Andhra Pradesh by a notification under Article 214 of the Constitution read with Section 31 of the Act of 2014, the Hyderabad High Court would not have territorial jurisdiction over the new State of Andhra Pradesh but even after such creation, the Hyderabad High Court would still retain jurisdiction in respect of appeals, applications for leave to the Supreme Court, applications for review and other proceedings, including contempt proceedings, in relation to the territories of Andhra Pradesh. The Division Bench noted that this was clear from sub-section (3) 3 2015(2) ALD 554 (D.B.) : 2015(1) ALT 418 (D.B.) 11 of Section 40 of the Act of 2014. Exercise of power under the proviso to Section 40(3) of the Act of 2014 was not considered in the said case.
At this stage, it would be appropriate to deal with another issue raised by Sri D.V.Sitharam Murthy, learned senior counsel. He would argue that Section 40(3) of the Act of 2014 is in conflict with Article 226(2) of the Constitution. It is his contention that after constitution of the High Court for the present State of Andhra Pradesh, the Hyderabad High Court has no jurisdiction over the territories which fall within the jurisdiction of the newly constituted High Court. He would therefore assert that even writ appeals which come within the scope of Section 40(3) cannot be dealt with by the Hyderabad High Court after constitution of a separate High Court for the present State of Andhra Pradesh, as it no longer has jurisdiction over cases which relate to the territories of that State, as per Article 226(2).
Having given our earnest consideration to this aspect, we find the argument to be specious.
Article 226(2) provides that the power to issue directions, orders or writs under Article 226(1) may be exercised by any High Court having jurisdiction over the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. The argument of the learned senior counsel loses sight of the fact that Section 40(3) of the Act of 2014 deals with cases which arise out of or pertain to cases which were instituted before the common High Court at Hyderabad at a point of time when it did have territorial jurisdiction over both the States and on the strength of the cause of action which arose within its territories. As the cause of action for institution of such cases arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the common High Court at Hyderabad, the jurisdiction to deal with those cases stood crystallised at that point of time itself. Section 40(3) of the Act of 2014 merely retains and saves such 12 jurisdiction in the Hyderabad High Court to continue to deal with the limited matters arising out of such cases which were dealt with by the common High Court at Hyderabad at a point of time when it had jurisdiction to deal with them, notwithstanding the constitution of a separate High Court for the present State of Andhra Pradesh. There is therefore no conflict between Section 40(3) of the Act of 2014 and Article 226(2) of the Constitution.
As stated supra, all that Section 40(3) postulates is that the cause of action in relation to the cases covered thereby would remain frozen and the Hyderabad High Court would have sole jurisdiction to entertain, hear and dispose of appeals, reviews and other cases which are linked to the orders passed by the common High Court at Hyderabad. This being the import of the main provision, the proviso to Section 40(3) of the Act of 2014 vests the Chief Justice of the Hyderabad High Court with the power to transfer even such proceedings as would fall within the ambit of Section 40(3) to the newly constituted High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh. Be it noted that reference in this proviso is to the Chief Justice of the Hyderabad High Court and not to the High Court itself. Therefore, such power vests in the Chief Justice of the Hyderabad High Court on the administrative side and no judicial act is required on his part to transfer cases falling within the ambit of Section 40(3) of the Act of 2014.
It may also be noted that the proviso to Section 40(3) of the Act of 2014 does not require or speak of exercise of power by the Chief Justice on a case to case basis. The use of the words '....it appears to the Chief Justice of that High Court that they ought to be transferred to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh...' demonstrates that it is open to the Chief Justice to exercise this power en bloc also, if he so chooses, and transfer all such cases covered by Section 40(3) of the Act of 2014 with one stroke of the pen. 13
The request of the learned Advocate General for the State of Andhra Pradesh on 28.01.2019, reiterated during the hearing by the learned Special Government Pleader representing him, is that the Chief Justice of the Hyderabad High Court should exercise this power and transfer the writ appeals on hand and all such other matters which come within the ambit of Section 40(3) of the Act of 2014 to the newly constituted High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh. On the same lines is the request embodied in the letter dated 06.01.2019 of the President of the Andhra Pradesh High Court Advocates Association.
It may be noted that all the writ appeals on hand pertain to the people of the present State of Andhra Pradesh or the properties situated in the said State. Though Section 40(3) of the Act of 2014 saves the jurisdiction of the Hyderabad High Court to deal with these matters and all such other matters where they seek relief in relation to any order passed by the common High Court at Hyderabad before constitution of a separate High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh, hearing of such matters now by the Hyderabad High Court would necessarily entail movement, time and again, of litigants, records and officials of the State of Andhra Pradesh and its authorities to and fro Hyderabad. This would inevitably cause inconvenience not only to the litigants but also to the State machinery. All the more so in contempt cases, which would fall within the ambit of Section 40(3) of the Act of 2014, as pointed out in SEHNAZ MIRZA1 and as they would be proceedings which seek relief in respect of the orders passed earlier by the common High Court at Hyderabad prior to constitution of the separate High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh. As the hearing of such contempt cases may require actual and continued presence of State Officials, administration in the State of Andhra Pradesh may be hampered owing to 14 their repeated absence from office. Keeping such aspects in mind, it would be wholly within the administrative power of the Chief Justice of the Hyderabad High Court to exercise discretion under the proviso to Section 40(3) of the Act of 2014 and transfer all such cases to the present High Court of the State of Andhra Pradesh, notwithstanding the fact that the Hyderabad High Court retains jurisdiction to hear such matters under Section 40(3) of the Act of 2014.
Needless to state, cases in which the State of Telangana figures as a party would not come within the ambit of Section 40(3) of the Act of 2014. Section 40 essentially deals with proceedings which are liable to be transferred from the Hyderabad High Court to the newly constituted High Court of Andhra Pradesh, owing to its jurisdiction being denuded under Section 40(1) of the Act of 2014. All matters involving the present State of Andhra Pradesh and also the State of Telangana would necessarily have to be dealt with on a case to case basis and cannot be brought within the sweep of the administrative power vesting in the Chief Justice under the proviso to Section 40(3) of the Act of 2014. This would include service disputes pertaining to both the States and all such other matters where both the States figure as parties.
Be it noted that all the learned counsel appearing before us broadly indicated their agreement with the opinion expressed by the Bench on the above lines during the hearing.
On the above analysis, we hold that though the Hyderabad High Court has the sole jurisdiction to continue to deal with the writ appeals on hand and all such other matters which would come within the ambit of Section 40(3) of the Act of 2014, it would be well within the administrative power of the Chief Justice of the Hyderabad High Court under the proviso to Section 15 40(3) of the Act of 2014 and given the circumstances, it would perhaps be advisable, to transfer these writ appeals and all such cases akin thereto, including contempt cases, review petitions and applications seeking leave to approach the Supreme Court in relation to the orders passed by the erstwhile common High Court at Hyderabad, to the newly constituted High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi.
The reference is answered accordingly. In terms thereof, Taken up W.P.(PIL) No.5 of 2019 shall stand disposed of. Registry is directed to place all these writ appeals and cases akin thereto, as indicated hereinabove, before the Hon'ble The Chief Justice of the High Court of Telangana on the administrative side for appropriate orders.
______________________________ THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, CJ _______________ SANJAY KUMAR, J ____________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J 12th FEBRUARY, 2019 L/R copy to be marked - Yes B/o Svv/PGS