DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry sent a letter No. 8126 dated 8-9-1995 to the Registry of the Court stating that on the existing ground floor of the reading and library room of the Bar Association building at Rajahmundry, first floor was being constructed and when enquiries were made, it was revealed that the then local Member of Parliament, Sri K.V.R. Chowdary had granted an amount of Rs. 1,35,000/- for tine construction of first floor of the said building and released the said amount in favour of the Executive Engineer and the Executive Engineer had taken up the construction work. He further stated that the present Bar Association building was within the control of Judicial Department and that on his initial enquiry, he came to know that the foundation laying ceremony was organised earlier during the time of his predecessor and that no permission had been obtained earlier for construction of first floor. The District Judge further stated that on his further probe, he came to know that no permission of the High Court had been taken for construction of the first floor and that no plans have been submitted by the Executive Engineer to the High Court for necessary permission and authorisation. He stated that immediately he had issued instructions to stop the construction work, by which time the construction work was half through. He also stated that the Executive Engineer immediately approached him and has submitted the xerox copies of the estimate and plan prepared by him. The District Judge also reported that there has been quick progress in construction and the roof slab has been laid, but doors and windows etc., were not fixed. The Court instructed the District Judge to seek explanation from the Bar Association and furnish the information on the following: (1) Who permitted construction; (2) Whether any written request for construction either to the District Judge or the High Court was made; (3) Who received the money from the Member Parliament funds; (4) Whether Roads and Buildings Department was involved in the construction or any third party was involved; and (5) How could the Executive Engineer proceed with the work without sanction from the High Court. Hie District Judge in answer to the above furnished the following information.

(2.) The District Judge also informed the Court that the Bar Association had been pleading for additional accommodation owing to the increase in the strength of the members of the Bar, including lady advocates. There was genuine need for additional accommodation. The Court on the administrative side had already taken the need of the additional accommodation in the various Courts in the State and asked the District Judges to report about the need of such additional accommodation, including accommodation for the Bar Associations. On receipt of the report from the District Judges above, however, in taking up the construction of first floor of a building in the court premises, the Registrar (Judl.) was directed to place the matter for being taken up on judicial side. Accordingly, notices have been issued to the Executive Engineer, Roads & Buildings Department, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, the Bar Association, Rajahmundry, represented by its President as well as the Secretary, Rajahmundry Bar Association and the District Collector.

(3.) The Executive Engineer has since filed a counter-affidavit and a statement of facts. His case in brief, before this Court, is that Sri A. Venku Reddv. the then District Judge had directed for preparation of plans and estimates, which the Executive Engineer had prepared and submitted to the Superintending 'Engineer (R & B), Kakinada with counter signature of the District Judge and eventually to the Engineer-in-Chief (R & B) in 1991. On verifying the records, he found that the then District Judge, Sri K.B. Siddappa sent a letter dated 2-8-1994 to the Registrar (Management), High Court, in which he referred to the earlier correspondence dated 16-5-1991,2-8-1991 and 9-10-1991 etc.,and sought for administrative sanction from the High Court. He has stated that the construction is bona fide and is not with any intention to disobey any orders of the Court.