The Court dismissed writ petitions challenging the government's notification creating new districts and locating their headquarters, holding that the decision-making process followed the Act and Rules and was not arbitrary.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
;; AWIARAVATI ANDHRA PRADESH IN the high court of Original Jurisdiction) (Special
fourth DAY OF APRIL THURSDAY, THE and twenty four TWO THOUSAND
PRESENT
SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE honourable MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ AND rAGHUNANDAN RAO honourable MR. JUSTICE R
77 AND 7ft OF 2022 ^p(PU ) NO’ *^^1 —
\A/P(PIU N0A-53 0F_2Q22
Between:
, Hindupur Mandal. Ananthapur District Committee, Hindupur Akilapaksham T. Balaji Manohar rep.by its Convenor
AND
gL
... Respondents
226 of the Constitution of India praying that in Petition under Article affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may the circumstances stated in the a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the be pleased to issue the decision of the State nature of Writ of Mandamus challenging Constituency as Sri Government in declaring Hindupur Parliamentary the district head quarter at Puttaparthy as Satyasai District and locating rule of law and principles of natural illegal, arbitrary, malafide, against the Andhra Pradesh District justice, contrary to the provisions of the (Formation) Act, 1974 and the rules framed thereunder and in violation of consequently direct the respondent Articled of the Constitution of India No.1 to consider the Hindupur parliamentary constituency to form as the instead of proposed Sri Satyasai District and to locate the Hindupur District district head quarter at Hindupur instead of Puttaparthy town.
lA NO: 1 OF 2022
that in the circumstances Petition under Section 151 CPC praying stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be further proceedings regarding the location of the pleased to stay of the all district head quarter of proposed Sri Satyasai district,includingthefinal notification and locating the government Offices atPuttaparthypending disposal of the above writ petition in the interestof justiceandfairplay.
3
counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI. PRABHUNATH VASIREDDY
; THE ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for the Respondents
; GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION Counsel for the Respondent No.1
2, 4 & 5 : GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondents
: GP FOR FINANCE & PLANNING Counsel for the Respondent No.3
Counsel for the Respondent No.6 : NONE APPEARED
WP(PIL) NO: 59 OF 2022
Between:
Convenor Tharigopula Sadhana Samithi Rep.by the Zilla Kendra Hindu, Advocate. Lakshminarayana S/o Late Narasimhulu, Aged 59 years R/O Door NO. 6/445 -B-1, Chaitanya Nagar, R.S Road,RajampetaMunrcpal Town and Mandal, Kadapa District, A.P. Adhar Card No.30147594400 3, Pan Card NO.AHDPN3614R, Bank Account No.147801000000089.
... Petitioner
AND
h
... Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, in deciaring Rajampeta Pariiamentary Constituency as Annamayya District and iocating the district head quarters at Rayachoti, declaring the Final Notification No.495, dated 03-04-2022 forming new district as illegal, arbitrary, malafide, not in public interests, against the Principles of natural justice and the rule of law contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Districts (Formation) Act, 1974 and the rules framed thereunder and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and to set aside the same and to direct the respondents to declare Rajampeta Parliamentary Constituency as District Head quarter instead of Rayachoti Town for Annamayya District and consequently to form the District Head quarter at Rajampeta Parliamentary Constituency instead of Rayachoti Town.
lA NO: 1 OF 2022
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances of the petition, the High Court may be stated in the affidavit filed in support proceedings regarding the location of the pleased to stay of all further including the final notification District Head quarter for Annamayya District at Rayachoti Town and to form the and locating the government offices District Head quarter instead of Raiampeta Parliamentary Constituency as Rayachoti Town for Annamayya District and pending disposal of the above writ petition in the interest of justice and fair play.
lA NO: 2 OF 2022
the circumstances Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,theHighCourtmaybe pleased to pass an interim order directing the Respondents to suspend the Final Notification No.495, dated 03-04-2022 formingnewdistrictandto consider the objections dated 18.02.2022 of the petitioner to form fhe District Head quarter instead of Rajampeta Parliamentary Constituency as Rayachoti Town for Annamayya District.
Counsel tor the Petitioner(s): SRI. SS RAMA KRISHNAPRASAD
Counsel for the Respondents ; THE ADVOCATE GENERAL
: GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION Counsel for the Respondent No.1 Counsel for the Respondents 2, 6 & 8 : GP FOR REVENUE
: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADM & URBAN Counsel for the Respondent No.3 DEV ; GP FOR PANCHAYT RAJ RURAL Counsel for the Respondents 4 & 7 DEV
Counsel for the Respondent No.5 : GP FOR FINANCE & PLANNING
WP(PIL) NO: 71 OF 2022
Between:
Yarramsetti Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Ramaraju, S/o. Suryanarayana, aged about 46 years, Occ. Politician, R/o. D. No. 33-1-44/1, Kavala Vari Savaram, Muchimilli Post, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, East Godavari District, A.P.
... Petitiner
AND
7
... Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents by merging Ramachandrapuram Constituency into Konaseema District by way of Gazette Notification No. 479 dated 03.04.2022 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and in violation of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the ConstitutionofIndiaand against the Andhra Pradesh Districts (Formation) Act,1974andalsoorder the Respondents to consider the representation of the Petitioner dated 03.02.2022 to merge the Ramachandrapuram Constituency into newly formed Kakinada District instead of Konaseema District for all practical purposes to facilitate the people in view of the distanceandothercriterias as mentioned in the Affidavit.
lA NO: 2 OF 2022
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to pass an interim order directing the Respondents to suspend the extent of merging of Ramachandrapuram Constituency into Konaseema District from the Gazette Notification No. 479 dated 03.04.2022.
lA NO: 1 OF 2022
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to pass an interim order directing the Respondentstoconsiderthe representation of the Petitioner dated 03.02.2022 to merge the
s
Ramachandrapuram Constituency into Kakinada District instead of Konaseema District.
Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI. SRINIVASA RAO NARRA
Counsel for the Respondents : THE ADVOCATE GENERAL
Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION
Counsel for the Respondents 2, 6 & 8 : GP FOR REVENUE
Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADM & URBAN DEV
Counsel for the Respondents 4 & 7 : GP FOR PANCHAYT RAJ RURAL DEV
Counsel for the Respondent No.5 : GP FOR FINANCE & PLANNING
WP(PIL) NO: 77 OF 2022
Between:
Advocates Joint Action Committee of Rajampet, Railway Koduru and Nandaluru Advocates Bar Associations rep.by its Convenor, Doddipalli Chaya Devi @ Y.Chaya Devi, W/o. Karunakara Raju, aged about 59 years. Advocate, R/o H.No.1-10, S.Errapalli village, Rajampet Mandal, Kadapa District
... Petitioner
AND
1
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any otherappropriateWrit, order or direction declaring G.O.Ms.No.196, Revenue (Lands-IV) Department, dt. 02.04.2022 (published in A.P.Gazette No.495, dt. 03.04.2022) forming Annamayya District with headquarters at Rayachoti instead of Rajampet as illegal, arbitrary, not in publicinterest,contraryto the provisions of A.P. Districts (Formation) Act, 1974(Act7/1974)and Rules framed thereunder, as also The Delimitation Act, 2002 (Act 33/2002), unconstitutional etc., with a consequential direction to the Respondent to constitute Rajampet as the District Headquarters for the above said Annamayya District and grant such other just and consequential relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and properinthecircumstances of the case.
'O
lA NO: 2 OF 2022
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of G.O.Ms.No.196, Revenue (Lands-IV) Department, dt: 02.04.2022 (published in A.P.Gazette No.495 dt: 03.04.2022) forming Annamayya District with headquarters at Rayachoti instead of Rajampet pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and grant such other just and consequential relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
lA NO: 1 OF 2022
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents not to shift the existing Government Offices from Rajampet to Rayachoti or make any new constructions for establishing Government Offices in Rayachoti pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and grant such other just and consequential relief or reliefs as this Hon ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
Counsel for the Petitloner(s): SRI. VV L N SARMA
Counsel for the Respondents : THE ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION
Counsel for the Respondents 2, 6 & 8 : GP FOR REVENUE
Counsel for the Respondent No.3 ; GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADM & URBAN DEV
l(
Counsel for the Respondents 4 & 7 : GP FOR PANCHAYTRAJRURAL DEV
Counsel for the Respondent No.5 : GP FOR FINANCE &PLANNING
WP(PIL) NO: 78 OF 2022
Between:
... Petitioners
AND
...Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, challenging the G.O MS No. 196 Revenue (Lands.IV), dated 02.04.2022 with regard to the decision of the State Government in declaring location of District Headquarter of Annamayya District as Rayachoti instead of Rajampet is as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of The Andhra Pradesh District Formation Act 1974 and Rules made there under vide G.O MS No. 605 Revenue (U), 04.04.1984 and also violation of Principles of natural justice and contrary to the scope and objective of G.O RT No. 2098 Finance Department (Budget.l) Dated 07.08.2020 and minutes of the meeting of Committee to study the Restructuring of Districts in Andhra Pradesh.
lA NO: 1 OF 2022
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant interim direction to suspend the operation of impugned G.O. MS No.196 Revenue (Lands.lV), dated 02.04.2022. pending disposal of the present PIL.
Counsel for the Petitioner(s) : SRI. V V LAKSHMI NARAYANA
Counsel for the Respondents : THE ADVOCATE GENERAL
Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION
Counsel for the Respondents 2 & 4 : GP FOR REVENUE
Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : GP FOR MUNICIPALADM&URBAN DEV
Counsel for the Respondents 4 & 7 : GP FOR PANCHAYTRAJRURAL DEV
Counsel for the Respondent No.8 : GP FOR FINANCE &PLANNING
The Court made the following : COMMON ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OP ANDHRA PRADESH; AMARAVATI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
8e
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
W.P.CPIL^ Nos.Sg. 59, 71, 77 and 78 of 8022
W.P.CPILy No.Sg of 8082:
AMlapaksham Committee, Hindupur, Hindupur Mandal, Ananthapur District,
Rep. by its Convenor T. Balaji Manohar.
... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat Buildings, A.P. Secretariat,
Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Gimtur District and five others.
...Respondents
Mr. Prabhunath Vasireddy, Counsel for petitioner.
Learned Advocate General, Counsel for respondents/State,a/w.GP for GAD, Counsel for respondent No.l; GP for FinanceandPlanmng, Counsel for respondent No.3; GP for Revenue, Coimsel for respondent Nos.4 and. 5 and None for respondent No.6.
W.PCPIL:). No.59 of 8082:
Zilla Kendra Sadhana, Samithi, Annamayya District, Rep. by the Convenor Tharigopula Lakshminarayana, S/o Late Narasimtiul-u, Aged 59 years, Hindu, Advocate, R/o Door No 6/445-B-l, Chaitanya Nagar, R. S. Road,
Rajampeta Municipal Town and Mandal, Kadapa District,A.P.
HCJ a RRR, J W.P.(PIL) Nos.53, 59. 71, 77 a 78 of 2022
2
... Petitioner
Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. hy the Chief Secretary, General Administration Department (GAD), Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District and seven others.
...Respondents
Mr. S. Siva Rama Krishna Prasad, Counsel for the petitioner.
Learned Advocate General, Counsel for respondents/State,a/w,GP for GAD, Counsel for respondent No.l; GP for Revenue,Counselfor respondent Nos.2 and 6; GP for Municipal Adm. and UrbanDev., Counsel for respondent No.3; GP for Panchayat Raj andRuralDev., Counsel for respondent Nos.4, 7 and 8 and GP for Financeand Planning, Counsel for respondent No.5.
W.P.fPIL). No.71 of 8082:
Yarramsetti Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Ramaraju, S/o. Suryanarayana, aged about 46 years, Occ. Pohtician, R/o. D.No.33-1-44/1, Kavala Vari Savaram, Muchimilh Post, Rajnachandrapuram Mandal, East Godavari District, A. P. ... Petitioner Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Chief Secretary, General Administration Department (GAD), Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, and seven others.
...Respondents
Mr. Srinivasa Rao Narra, Counsel for petitioner. Learned Advocate General, Counsel for respondents/State,a/wGP for GAD, Counsel for respondent No.l; GP for Revenue, Gouns^ or respondent Nos.2, 6 and 8; GP for Municipal Adm. andUrbanDev.,
HCJ & RRR, J W.P.(PIL) Nos.53, 59, 71, 77 & 78 of 2022
3
Counsel for respondent No.3; GP for Panchayat Raj andRuralDev., Counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 7; GP for FinanceandPlanning, Counsel for respondent No.5 and None for respondentNo.6.
W.PCPILj. No.77 of 2082:
Advocates Joint Action Committee Of Rajampet, Railway Koduru and Nandaluru Advocates Bar Associations, Rep. by its Convenor, Doddlpalli Chaya Devi @ Y Chaya Devi, W/o KarunakaraRaju, Aged about 59 years. Advocate, R/o. H. No. 1-10, S. ErrapaUi village, Rajampet Mandal, Kadapa District.
... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep. by the Chief Secretary, General Administration Department (GAD), Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District and sevenothers.
Mr. V. V. L. N. Sarma, Counsel for the petitioner.
Learned Advocate General, Counsel for respondents/State, a/w, GP for GAD, Coimsel for respondent No.l; GP for Revenue,Counselfor respondent Nos.2, 6 and 8; GP for Municipal Adm. andUrbanDev., Counsel for respondent No.3; GP for Panchayat Raj andRuralDev., Counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 7; GP for FinanceandPlanning, Coimsel for respondent No.5.
W.PCPIL). No.78 of 2082:
Sadhu Subramanyam Panth, S/o S V Krishnaiah, Age 60 years, Occ. CharteredAccoimtant, Address D. No. 4-321, Travelers Bungalow Street, Rajampet, Annamayya District, A. P. &> three others.
... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Chief Secretary,
HCJ a RRR, J W.P.(PIL) Nos.53, 59, 71, 77 a 78 of 2022
4
General Administration Department (GAD), Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District and five others.
...Respondents
Mr. V. V. Lakshmi Narayana, Counsel for the petitioner.
Learned Advocate General, Counsel for respondents/State,a/w,GP for GAD, Counsel for respondent No.l; GP for Revenue,Counselfor respondent Nos.2 and 4; GP for Finance and Planning,Counselfor respondent No. 13.
DATE : OH.04.2024
PER DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ:
W.P.(PIL).No. 53 of 2022 has been filed challenging the decision of the State Government in declaring Hindupur parliamentary constituency as Sri Satya Sai Districtandlocating the District Headquarters at Puttaparthy, The petitionerfurther prays for writ of mandamus for declaring Hindupur parhamentary constituency as a District instead of Sri Satya SaiDistrictandto locate the District Headquarters at Hindupur instead of Puttaparthy.
W.P(PIL) Nos.59, 77 &- 78 of 2022 have been filed challenging the action of the Government in declaring AnnamayyaDistrictwith its Headquarters at Rayachoti and instead it is prayed that Rajampet be declared as Headquarters for AnnamayyaDistrict.
HCJ a RRR, J 5 W.P.(PIL) Nos.53, 59, 71. 77 a 78 of 2022
In W.P(PIL) No.71 of 2022, the petitioner challenges the merger of Ramachandrapuram into newly formed Konaseema District. The contention of the petitioner is thatthesaidareaought to have been a part of Kakinada District.
In all these petitions, the petitioners allege violation of principles of natural justice as also violation oftheprovisionsof the Andhra Pradesh Districts (Formation) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and the rules framed thereunder.Briefly stated the material facts are as under:
- According to Section 3 (1) of the Act, the Governmentmay, by notification, for purposes of revenue administration,dividethe State into such districts with such hmits as may be specified therein and further that each district shall consistofsuchrevenue
HCJ a RRR, J 6 W.P.(PIL) Nos.53, 59, 71, 77 a 78 of 2022
divisions and eacli revenue division shall consistofsuchmandals and each Mandal shall consist of villages as the Governmentmay, by notification from time to time specify in this behalf.
- In terms of Section 3(2) of the said Act, the Governmentcan also, in the interest of better administration anddevelopmentof the areas form a new district, revenue division or Mandalbyseparation of area from any district, revenue division, or mandalorbyuniting two or more districts, revenue divisions, or mandals or parts thereof or by uniting any area to a district, revenue division, mandal or part thereof. It can also by issuance ofanotification under Section 3(2) of the Act, increase or diminishtheareaof any district, revenue division or mandal or alter theirboundariesor names.
Section 3(5) of the Act envisages as under;
notification \inder this “(5) Before issuing any section, the Government or the [Commissioner of Land Revenue], as the case may be, shall publish in suchmanner or as may be prescribed, the proposals inviting objections suggestions thereon from the persons residing withinthe district, revenue division, [mandal] or village whoarelikely to be affected thereby within such period as may bespecified therein, and shall take into consideration the objections or suggestions, if any, received.”
HCJ a RRR, J W.P.(PIL) Nos.53, 59, 71, 77 a 78 of 2022
7
reproduced hereunder;
(i) Area, population, demand imder the land revenueandother revenues in respect of areas affected by the proposals:
(ii) Historical association, Geographical contiguity, Physical featmes, common interests and problems, Cviltural and Educational req\iirements. Infrastructural facihtiesandeconomic progress of the areas. (ill) Development of the area concerned, having regardtothe various developments and welfare schemes undertaken or contemplated by the Government in relation to thoseareas; (iv) Administrative convenience and better administration;and (v) interest of economy.
HCJ & RRR, J 8 W.P.(PIL) Nos.53, 59, 71, 77 & 78 of 2022
(2) With regard to any proposals for alteration ofthenameof the district revenue division, mandal or a villageregardshallbe had among other matters, to the following namely:-(i)Historical association, if any, of the existing name, with theproposed change; and (ii) the need for change of name if anyproposed.
(3) In matters concerning sub-section (1) or sub-section(2)of Section 3 of the Acts the CoUector concerned shallforwardtothe Government his report with his views together withtherecordof enquiry if any for the consideration of the Government. If after such consideration the Government so decides, a preliminary notification under sub-section (5) of Section 3 oftheActinviting objections or suggestions to the proposals from thepersons residing in the area/areas which are likely to be affectedthereby, shall be issued.
(4) In matters concerning sub-section (4) of Section 3ofthe Act, the CoUector concerned shall forward to the Commissionerof Land Revenue his report together with the record ofinquiryif for the consideration of the Commissioner. If any with his views alter such consideration the Commissioner of Land Revenue so notification imder sub-section (4) of decides, a preliminary Section 3 of the Act inviting objections or suggestionstothe proposals from the persons residing in the area/areaswhichare Ukely to be affected thereby shall be issued.
HCJ a RRR, J 9 W.P.(PIL) Nos.53, 59, 71, 77 a 78 of 2022
(2) Any person affected by the proposal may within[30day's] from the date of publication of the notification referredtoinsub rule (1) above communicate his objections or suggestionsthereto to the Secretary to the Government in the Revenue Department or to the Commissioner of Land Revenue, as the case may be, through the Collector of the district concerned, whoshallforward the same with his remarks to the Government or the Commissioner of Land Revenue as the case maybe.
In the hght of the aforementioned provisions of theActandthe Rules, it appears that the Government constituted State Level Committee (SLC) namely the ‘Committee to study therestructiming of Districts in Andhra Pradesh’ under the chairmanshipof theChief Secretary to Government, vide G.O.Ms.No.2098, dated07.08.2020. Subsequently, the Government issued another G.O. bearing G.0.Rt.No.2207, dated 22.08.2020, constituting sub-committees and District Level Conunittees to assist the StateLevelCommittee and for providing inputs to the said Committee.
HCJ a RRR, J 10 W.P.(PIL) Nos.53, 59. 71, 77 a 78 of 2022
inclusion of Ramachandrapuram Assembly Constituency in the Konaseema District in W.P. (PIL) No.71 of 2022.
draft 8. According to the petitioners, objections filed to the notifications were not considered in the correct perspective inasmuch as they had not followed the criteria prescribedunderthe Act of 1974 and the Rules framed thereunder.
For purposes of reference, as can be seen from thecounter affidavit filed by the Government:
In the case of W.P.rPILj No.55 of 2022:
In response to the objections/suggestions, the remarks of the Collector were as under:
“546 Applications have been received. The Request made to consider Hindupur as District Head Quarter is not considered as Puttaparthy has all infrastructural facilities. Hencetherequest maybe rejected.”
Remarks of the Government were as under:
HCJ a RRR, J 11 W.P.(PIL) Nos.53, 59, 71, 77 a 78 of 2022
“Hindupiir is not centrally located to the newly proposedSri Satya Sai District. Hindupur is having an inter-stateborderwith Karnataka State.
The availability of infrastructural facihties has beenthemost important criterion for the setting up of new district head quarters. Puttaparthy has better infrastructure facihtiesand is having good transportation facihties from ah cornersoftheState and Coimtry. There is a Super Specialty Hospital ruimedbySri Satya Sai Central Trust and is providing free servicestothepoor people. Sri Satya Sai Airport is conveniently locatedSix(6) Kms from Puttapaj’thy town and it is the only privatelyownedairport in India. It can be used by the Government for Transportation. Hence the same is selected as district head Quarters of Sri Satya Sai District. The CoUector has also recommended the same. Hence the request may be rejected and accordingly, the Preliminary Notification may be confirmed.”
In the cases of W.P.CPIL^ No. 59, 77 arid 78 of 8022:
In response to the objections/suggestions filed by the petitioners and similarly situate others, wherein requestwasmade to declare Rajampet as District Headquarters of thenewly proposed Annamayya District, the Collector submitted his remairksasunder:
“The notification No. 119 dated 26.01.2022 of the Andhra Pradesh was issued by the Government of AP for restructuringof the district taking into consideration of proximitytotheproposed new Head Quarters to the three Assembly ConstituenciesinYSR District and Chittoor District within Rajampet Parhamentary Constituency. The distance of proposed new districtHeadQuarter from other Constituencies is as detailed below:-
HCJ a RRR, J W.P.(PIL) Nos.53, 59, 71, 77 a 78 of 2022
12
The distance from Rajampet to Madanapalli, Filer, TambaUapaUi & Ely. Kodnr is 127 KMs, 92 KMs, 120 KMs & 56 KMs respectively whereas from Rayachoti to Madanapalh, Filer, TamhaUapalh 8e Rly. Kodur is 71 KMs, 56 KMs, 64 KMs&?92 KMs respectively. Further, in respect of infrastructure,itisalso available at Rayachoti. Hence, the request of the petitionercould not he considered due to geographical distances.
Remarks of the Government were as under:
“Rule 3(1) of the Andhra Fradesh district (formation)rules, 1984 hsts various factors that need to be taken intoconsideration by the Government, in addition to the mews of the collectors, on representations received after preliminary notificationsunder Rvde 3(3).
The distance from Rajampet to Madanapalh, Filer, TamballapaJh &- Rly. Kodur is 127 KMs, 92 KMs, 120 KMs 8e 56 KMs respectively whereas from Rayachoti to Madanapalh, Filer, Tamballapalh 8c Rly. Kodur is 71 KMs, 56 KMs, 64 KMs8e92 KMs respectively. Further, in respect of infrastructure,thesame is also readily available at Rayachoti.
Keeping in view of the distances from Rajampeta andRayachoti to other Mandals and due to this proximity, it is historically associated with geographical areas of Rayachoti. Under the circumstances. the request to declare Rajampet as District Head Quarters of newly proposed Annamayya District appears to be not justified.
Hence, the request may not be accepted to incorporateinthe final Notification.”
In the case of WJRCPILl No_^71 of 2022:
HCJ a RRR, J 13 W.P.(PIL) Nos.53, 59, 71, 77 a 78 of 2022
As per the counter-affidavit filed, it appears that the objections to the notification, dated 25.01.2022, werefiledwhich were considered by the Government in the fight of thefollowing
remarks:
“Ramachandrapuram Revenue Division with the headquajoters Ramachandrapuram is presently situated in Amalapuram Parhamentary constituency. Now, it is being proposed for inclusion in proposed Konaseema District with the headquarters at Amalapuram. The distance between Ramachandrapuram revenue division headquarters at Ramachandrapuram to proposed headquarters at Amalapuram is about 55 kmswhereas from Kakinada, it is about 31 kms. The objections are not considered since there is not much difference in respect of distance factor from Ramachandrapuram revenue divisiontothe proposed headquarters of Kakinada and Amalapuram. Ramachandrapuram Revenue division is falling under Amalapuram Parhamentary constituency and the objectiveofthe Government is to reorganise the districts more (or)less basing on the existing Parliamentary constituency as a criteria.”
After considering the objections so filed, the Government issued a final notification for formation of Konaseema District, vide G.O.Ms.No.180, dated 02.04.2022, following the procedureunder the A.P. District (Formation) Act, 1974 and A.P. District (Formation) Rules, 1984. It is not out of place tomentionthatas per the counter-affidavit filed by the Government, the Government has changed the name of Konaseema District as Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District, vide G.0.Rt.No.361, dated 18.05.2022.
HCJ 6 RRR, J 14 W.P.(PIL) Nos.53, 59, 71, 77 a 78 of 2022
- From the above, it is thus clear that the objectionswerenot only invited, in terms of the Act of 1974 and the Rulesframed thereunder, they were also considered by the Governmentpursuant to which the final notifications were issued on 03.04.2022.Itwould be apt for us to place rehance upon the Supreme Courtjudgmentin the case of J.R. Raghupathy & Others v. State of A.P.&Othersim which the Supreme Court set aside the judgment of theHighCourt wherein it had interfered with the location of the Mandal Headquarters and had quashed the impugned notificationonthe ground that the Government had acted in breach of theguidelines and proceeded to decide that place A was more centrallylocated
than place B for the location of such Mandal headquarters.The Apex Court, in those circumstances, held;
(1988) 4 see 364
HCJ a RRR, J W.P.(PIL) Nos.53, 59, 71, 77 a 78 of 2022
15
objections ajid suggestions received from the locsd authorities like the gram panchayats and the general public. Even assumingthat the Government while accepting the recommendations of the Cabinet Sub Committee directed that the MandaJ Headquarters should be at place 'X' rather tham place 'Y' as recommended by the Collector concerned in a particular case, the High Court wouldnot have issued a writ in the natime of mandamus to enforce the guidehnes which were nothing more than administrative instructions not having any statutory force, which did not give rise to any legal right in favour of the writ petitioners.”
Pending miscellaneous apphcations, if any, shall stand closed.
Sd/- U. SRIDEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
One Fair Copy to the Hon’ble MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR CHIEF JUSTICE (For His Lordship’s kind perusal)
One Fair Copy to the Hon’ble MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO (For His Lordship’s kind perusal)
To,
Madhu gl J\V
HIGH COURT
Dii^|D:04/04/2024■M*
i
V >
COMMON ORDER
WP(PIL).No.53, 59, 71, 77 AND 78 of 2022
33rcpfe^
/)Pi
^4/
DISMISSING THE ALL WP(PIL)’s WITHOUT COSTS
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Government violated the Andhra Pradesh Districts (Formation) Act, 1974 and Rules in locating district headquarters?
Whether the decision to locate headquarters at specific places was arbitrary or mala fide?
Whether the Court should interfere with the administrative decision on headquarters location?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
J.R. Raghupathy & Others v. State of A.P. & OthersRelied on¶262
J.R. Raghupathy & Others v. State of A.P. & Others (1988) 4 see 364
Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of IndiaReferred¶269
Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India
State of U.P. vs. Maharaja Dharmander Prasad SinghReferred¶269
State of U.P. vs. Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh
5 provisions across 3 enactments
Akilapaksham T. Balaji Manohar rep.by its Convenor, Hindupur Mandal Committee
Tharigopula Lakshminarayana
Yarramsetti Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Ramaraju
Doddipalli Chaya Devi
Sadhu Subramanyam Panth
The State of Andhra Pradesh
Dhiraj Singh Thakur
R. Raghunandan Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
