SC declines to entertain plea against shifting of AP HC

The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to entertain a plea by the Andhra Pradesh High Court Advocates Association for a direction to defer shifting of the high court from Hyderabad to a new premise at a camp office of the chief minister in Amaravathi.

A bench of Justices A K Sikri and S Abdul Nazeer rejected the plea that the makeshift arrangement does not have all requisite facilities including accommodation for judges.

"All these initial hiccups are always there," the bench said.

The petitioner association then preferred to withdraw the plea.

The court treated the petition "dismissed as withdrawn".

The association sought a direction to defer implementation of a notification issued by the Union government on December 26 in this regard.

Notably, the apex court had on October 29 noted in the case of 'Union of India vs T Dhangopal and others' that there is no embargo for the competent authority to issue a notification for bifurcation of the high court. A very big complex as 'Justice City' has been planned in Amaravathi where high court, subordinate courts and some of the tribunals would be accommodated.

The state of Andhra Pradesh was bifurcated on June 2, 2014, by virtue of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act. But the high court over there at Hyderabad was functioning as Andhra Pradesh and Telangana High Court.

The association, through a writ petition, claimed that the bifurcation of the Andhra Pradesh and Telangana High Court urgently to create a separate one for Andhra Pradesh was not in anybody's interest, including the state and the litigant public. There are no bungalows to accommodate judges and there is absolutely no safety for women bar members.

Among others, it claimed, "the construction of the new building is incomplete and it would take more than 10 months. The proposed high court has planned to start at a make-shift premise at a camp office of the chief minister, which is basically a residential apartment where there is a thoroughfare for many political persons making the environment, not at all conducive for judicial works."

The association further pointed out that a unanimous resolution was passed on December 5 not to shift to the temporary building.