Hyderabad: The Hyderabad High Court on Thursday asked counsel appearing for the AP High Court Sadhana Samiti to explain whether there were any conflicts or contradictions in the AP Reorganisation Acts of 1956 and 2014.
While hearing a plea seeking a separate High Court for AP, a division Bench comprising Chief Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta and Justice P.V. Sanjay Kumar permitted the Samiti and T. Amarnath Goud, a practising HC advocate, to implead as parties to the petition.
M.V. Raja Ram, advocate appearing for the Samiti, submitted before the bench that Section 94(3) of the AP Reorganisation Act 2014, which dealt with special financial assistance to AP, could not be read in isolation and the relevant Section should be read along with Section 30, 31 of the Act to get a clear picture for constitution of a separate HC for AP.
He said that as per Article 214 of the Constitution, every state should have a separate High Court and as the AP Reorganisation Act 2014 stipulates a common HC for both states, the common High Court should continue till the creation of a separate HC for the residuary state of AP.
Mr Raja Ram added, “If at all a separate High Court is to be constituted for AP, it should be within the jurisdiction of AP. The President is the only competent authority to issue a notification for constitution of HC, neither the Chief Justice of India nor the CJ of the High Court, nor the Centre has power to notify the creation of HC.”
When the counsel cited a Supreme Court judgment with regard to constitution of a separate HC for Maharashtra after its reorganisation, the Bench asked him to place before it on Friday whether there were any conflicts between the AP Reorganisation Act 1945 and Act 2014.
Mr Amarnath Goud has opposed the proposal of the TS government to establish its High Court in Gachibowli saying it will affect HC advocates. The bench will continue its hearing on Friday.
MLA told to turn up for judgement
The High Court directed Narsapur MLA B. Madhava Naidu from West Godavari district to be present before the court on Wednesday next for judgement in a contempt of court case.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta and Justice P.V. Sanjay Kumar was dealing with a suo motu contempt case against the MLA.
The judges said that they would not deliver the verdict if the MLA does not turn up, and would depute officials concerned to secure his presence for the next date
Suo motu contempt proceedings had been initiated against the MLA for his alleged interference in the eviction of unauthorised encroachments adjacent to Narsapur court complex, which took place in the presence of the district judge.
The High Court took serious exception of the interference of the MLA, terming it as an attack on judiciary.
AP will use Land Act for capital
The Andhra Pradesh government on Thursday submitted before the Hyderabad High Court that it will not interfere with agricultural operations of the petitioners in the Amaravati capital region who have made representations for deletion of their land from the land pooling scheme.
Justice Rajasekhar Reddy was dealing with four petitions by farmers from the Amaravati region challenging the action of the authorities in not considering their applications seeking deletion of their land.
Mr Dammalpati Srinivas, additional advocate-general, submitted that the process of considering petitioners’ applications had commenced and final orders would be passed in two weeks.
He submitted that the government would acquire the land of the people who hadn’t consented for land pooling, by under the Land Acquisition Act. The judge adjourned the case for two weeks.
