PATEL SUDHAKAR REDDY Vs. REGISTRAR ADMINISTRATION HIGH COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant who is facing trial in S.C. 207 of 1993 on the file of II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad- cum-Additional Designated Judge under Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (for short 'the TADA Act') has filed writ of quo warranto challenging the appointment of third respondent, Mr. K. Mahalaxmi Rao, as a Judge of the Designated Court on the ground that it is contrary to Section 9(6) of the TADA Act, which requires that the person before appointment as a Judge of a Designated Court must have been immediately before such appointment a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge. Our learned Brother dismissed the writ petition and against that order, this appeal has been filed

(2.) To appreciate the point raised by the appellant, it is necessary to state a few facts which are not in dispute. The third respondent nas been promoted temporarily as District and Sessions Judge Grade II by G.O.Rt.No. 4131 dated 25-9-1992. On 2-11-1992, by G.O.Rt No. 4730, he was posted as Member, Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Hyderabad. By notification No.82-3. Spl. dated 19-4-1994, while making postings and transfers, the High Court has posted him as Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court-cum-II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. He took charge on 5-5-1994.

(3.) By Roc.No.25/SO/74 dated 14-8-1974, the High Court exercising power under Sub-section (2) of Section 9 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Act II of 1974), appointed District Judges by virtue of their office to be the Sessions Judges of the respective Courts of Session and also Additional District Judges to be the Additional Sessions Judges. By GO.Ms.No. 345 dated 25-7-1987, the Government of Andhra Pradesh in exercise of powers conferred by Clause 8 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Ordinance, 1987 (Central Ordinance 2 of 1987), which has become later Section 9 in the Act, constituted all Courts of Sessions in the State as Designated Courts within their respective jurisdiction and appointed the principal Sessions Judges of the Courts of Sessions as Judges to preside over the Designated Courts. By GO.Ms.No. 518 dated 29-10-1987, issued under Sub-section (5) of Section 9 of the TADA Act, the Government appointed with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of High Court, II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, as Additional Judge to exercise jurisdiction in the Designated Court constituted for Metropolitan Sessions Division. By another G.O.Ms. No.328 dated 7-6-1988, also issued under Section 9(5) of the TADA Act the Government with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court appointed all the Additional Sessions Judges in the State as Additional Judges to exercise jurisdiction in Designated Courts except the II Metropolitan Sessions Judge. This Government Order is, however, not material for purpose of this writ appeal.