Nation Current Affairs 29 Jul 2016 Larger bench to hear ...

Larger bench to hear Hyderabad HC split plea

Published Jul 29, 2016, 4:07 am IST
Updated Jul 29, 2016, 7:36 am IST
To interpret words in Andhra Pradesh law
High Court in any part of the Telangana for AP, including Hyderabad, would be an action not permitted by law. (Representational image)
 High Court in any part of the Telangana for AP, including Hyderabad, would be an action not permitted by law. (Representational image)

Hyderabad: The Hyderabad High Court on Thursday referred to a larger bench, petitions seeking review of an earlier order of the same court on setting up of separate High Courts for AP and Telangana.

The Telangana government and Mr K. Ravinder Reddy, an advocate, sought the review of the order dated May 1, 2015 in which HC ruled that the constitution of High Court in any part of the Telangana for AP, including Hyderabad, would be an action not permitted by law.


A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice, Dilip B. Bhosale and Justice P.V. Sanjay Kumar on Thursday delivered its decision after hearing the arguments of the AP, Telangana and Central governments and also advocate petitioner.

The bench said that it has framed two important questions for the determination of the larger bench. “First, whether the order dated May 1, 2015 of this Court had put any restriction upon the power of the President of India to notify the location of the principal seat for the separate High Court for AP. Whether there have been any errors in the order dated May, 2015.”


Referring to Section 31 (2) of the Act 2014, the bench said that the section stipulated that “The principal seat of the High Court of AP shall be at such place as the President may, may be notified order, appoint”,  and added that this has to be interpreted with provisions of the Act passed in 1956.

The bench noted that in 1956, the AP High Court was formed by merging the then Hyderabad High Court and the Andhra High Court which was carved out of the then Madras High Court.

In the above context, the bench felt that to frame the second question and the question is what is the true meaning purport of the word ‘Principal Seat’ in section 31(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act.


The bench said that all provisions have to be read together and correctly interpreted and that a larger bench will hear the matter and answer the two questions framed.

Court stays arrest of 2 film nagar officials

The Hyderabad HC on Thursday directed the police not to arrest K.S. Rama Rao and B. Rajasekhar Reddy, president and secretary of the Film Nagar Cultural Centre in a case registered against them relating to the death of two construction workers due to the collapse of an under-construction portico on Sunday.

Justice M.S.K. Jaiswal while hearing a petition moved by the two seeking quashing of criminal proceedings registered against them, told the police to go ahead with investigation and adhere to provisions under the CrPC.


Senior counsel D.V. Seetharama Murthy appearing for the petitioners contended that the police had erroneously arrayed the petitioners as accused despite knowing the fact that the contractor and the structural engineer were responsible for the accident.

He said the petitioners had paid sufficient amount to the contractor to take all safeguards for the safety of workers. The public prosecutor told the court that the petitioners are avoiding appearing before the investigation officer.

Location: India, Telangana, Hyderabad